are Liese and mine's to un-neutral to link to?

Oh, not at all! I thought they were a perfect example. I meant it to come off more like "See what they did? We should do that every time!" And then I was thinking in one post, just to simplify the linkyness....

Hey, I'm not fully decided either, but I resent being told I should vote one way, even if I disagree, because those who feel that way shouldn't be "left out."

Burrell, nothing I posted in my previous post was in response to your discussion with Jon. I was merely responding to your post that quoted me that you started with "Wow".

---------

Liese S. "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 14, 2003 3:45:34 pm EST

Liese: I'm confused by your points under item 4. "a" says you think only one second is needed, but then in "b" you chose 9 as the number of seconds, which seems in conflict with what you just said in 4a. I just had chocolate, so my brain might be mush.

Cindy-- Liese was just taking the opposite view of me on a few things we agreed upon. I think if we edit into one post, we may have covered everything.

Cindy, it does conflict, deliberately. I was trying to counter all of Sophia's points so the issues were presented fairly. (Sophia chose yes, and 1, respectively, so that meant to present counterpoints I needed to chose no, and a high number.) I tried to note where my actual views diverged from the points given. Sorry for the confusion.

Although I had a perfectly good reason to contradict myself there, I do not promise to have perferctly good reasons if I contradict myself elsewhere. Heh.

Anyway to be completely fair, I should have included also a low number for the minimum voter turnout number. Sophia's was middle ground, and mine was fairly high.

The argument for a low minimum voter turnout, as I understand it, is that if people have no opinion on an issue, the vote should be able to be decided by the few people that do feel strongly. Since the voting mechanism provides a way for people who oppose an issue to do so, there is no reason for a vote to be blocked just because of low interest. People who oppposed minimum voter turnout altogether might vote this way, or people who believe that there should be few impediments to changing the boards.

[Please note that this is not my personal view, and therefore may be phrased in a biased manner. I'm trying, though! Just posting it as an addendum to Sophia's and my posts, in the interests of balance.]

Okay - sorry. And thanks, you two.

I just popped into movies for the first time and caught this typo in the blurb:

gossip about upcoming fims

What's a fim?

It's like a fam, only flimsy, in a flim-flam way that only fims can be.

fabulous

Where are we on the "put in a number" thing?

I was thinking, rather than saying "put a number between 1 and 100" which might inadvertently encourage people to be "reasonable" and just vote fifty, we should just give opinions voiced here, so we'd just say:

put a number in this box please [ ] (numbers suggested by Buffistas range from ten to sixty-five but please choose whatever number you want)

for MVT.

I think that's fair for MVT. For seconds I think that the numbers are as low as one and as high as fifteen? But someone would have to check on that. I think either Gar or Wolfram said fifteen?