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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.

Doesn't everyone agree that's so?

No. Because we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision". THAT way lies madness.

Things we voted on are decisions. No madness.

we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision".

We can. We really can. Everything decided up until the point we agreed to have voting was decided the Old Way. Which lots of people don't like, and lots of people felt disenfranchised by. But that was the Old Way. So we replaced it, but if we revisit the decisions of the the Old Way, that way lies madness.

So nothing that happened before 2003 counts? In that case, I think we should reconsider creating the Bitch thread. People keep saying it's pornographic.

Wolfram, cool it, you're getting to be really, really insulting here.

Huh? Please don't take my posts as personal attacks, because I've been very careful not to do that. I just don't want the proposed thread mooted on a technicality, I want if it gets a fourth second to get it's fair hearing from the board. If it has to wait 3 or 6 months, or if it gets relegated to discussion in 2 or 3 weeks, I honestly don't think it's getting treated fairly. Your opinion MV and I respect that. And I'm sorry if I've insulted you in any of these posts Plei, or anyone else for that matter. I'll stop for the night.

All the time you've been here discussing this, Wolfram, you could have been discussing the war. In Natter.

This is very true.

No. Because we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision". THAT way lies madness.

OK-- I have to preface this with the fact that I am in favor of opening the war discussion thread if a fourth is forthcoming. What harm will it do.

OTOH, since we didn't vote to move to buffistas.org, do we vote now? Or should we go back to WX. We didn't vote to have movies or music or firefly. Do we vote now? At one point our contingincy board was at ez boards. Do we have to vote to movethat? Obviously some decisions have to stand, They were there. They were made.