Care to define that list?
Oh, I know I'm at the top of it.
We didn't have sex, if that's what you mean. That's all I do now, not have sex.
Anya ,'Dirty Girls'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
bitterchick - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:37 pm PST #8526 of 10001
John H - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:43 pm PST #8527 of 10001
If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.
Doesn't everyone agree that's so?
All the time you've been here discussing this, Wolfram, you could have been discussing the war. In Natter.
bicyclops - Mar 20, 2003 9:05:51 pm PST #8528 of 10001
If something was proposed and discussed for some length of time, then either action was taken on it or a decision was made not to take action.
What length of time?
How do we differentiate between "no action was taken" and "a decision was made to not to take action"?
There may have been many things mentioned, dicussed even, where no action was taken. How many of these things are a "decision" which can't be discussed again for months?
Wolfram - Mar 20, 2003 9:06:28 pm PST #8529 of 10001
Visilurking
Care to define that list?
I only know I'm not on it. :)
DavidS - Mar 20, 2003 9:07:25 pm PST #8530 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
The active posting group (APG)
Let's not do this anymore, okay? Can we not try to label people as Go14 or APG or some such? I know we get frustrated and sometimes people feel cornered or not heard, but I really dislike this.
Hil R. - Mar 20, 2003 9:07:34 pm PST #8531 of 10001
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
So I'm asking those of you who can be objective on this - does it make sense for an extremely relevant topic to be tabled indefinitely the way the war thread has without any recourse to the active posting community at large?
Yes. Especially because of the "extremely relevant" part. We've got no idea if the thread will even be needed a week from now. (Well, we have some ideas, but can't know for sure.) And it's not being tabled indefinitely, it's being table for a set period of time. And the "active posting community at large" is perfectly able to come in here and post. Anybody who doesn't has chosen not to.
Betsy HP - Mar 20, 2003 9:08:13 pm PST #8532 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
I have had it with the references to the "Active Posting Group" and the "Cool Kids" and the "Insiders".
You can have it one of two ways.
1. I, Betsy Hanes Perry, am a Cool Kid. In that case, you have to admit that a Cool Kid can make a proposal and have it shouted down. Because I proposed the War Thread, most of those present (by more than 2/3rds) said NO, and it didn't get created.
2. I, Betsy Hanes Perry, am not a Cool Kid. In that case, you get to quit complaining that the Cool Kids are dominating this discussion.
Pick one.
What do I think? I think I have friends. I think I have enemies. I think that sometimes I say something smart and people say "Atta girl". I think that sometimes I say something wrong (because I am never, ever not-smart) and everybody argues with me until I shut up.
And I think I stopped keeping track of Cool Kids when I (thank GOD) left high school.
DavidS - Mar 20, 2003 9:08:36 pm PST #8533 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.
Doesn't everyone agree that's so?
Yes. Let me just preach again the value of Precedent for the sake of continuity and preventing destabilizing disruption.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 20, 2003 9:08:47 pm PST #8534 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
OK-- I am reasonable.
I think that the two proposals that came up in the interim need to be decided BEFORE we can decide on the war thread. To be fair and reasonable.
I think that it was never, ever an issue that more than one thing would be discussed in the voting thread. Related questions, yes. The WHOLE POINT of the VOTING and the DISCUSSION THREAD is that we deal with things in a logical one thing at a time matter.
Deena - Mar 20, 2003 9:09:28 pm PST #8535 of 10001
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara
Wolfram, a couple of things...
1. There's been discussion of bumping things forward in the queue with seconds. Considering your feeling of urgency in this, if it goes to a vote, it could be bumped up.
2.
basically a decision discussed by 34 posters who had no idea of the ultimate effect of that discussion
I believed that the discussion closed down the idea of a war thread because of the reasons I stated above. I didn't post about the issue because others were doing it quite eloquently without my help. I don't think you can say no one knew the ultimate effect of that discussion. Also, if 34 posters, one way or another, are expressing the opinions of most everyone, then I don't think we believed all of us needed to chime in with ITA AIFG.
I do feel frustrated on your behalf that you expressed an interest in opening a thread quickly and you've suffered, basically, an end run with two other proposals being seconded. That may need to be addressed in the times issue too.