One final post. I'm sorry about the term APG. It was not meant in a derogatory sense, it was meant to sum up the general consensus tonight. And the "those who can be objective" line was aimed at anyone who can be objective, and I'm not on that list. Your feeling about whether you are objective or not may vary, but again nobody was singled out, and it was meant as an invitation, not an attack. And change "indefinite tabling" to "undetermined time period tabling". There will be a definite time, but it hasn't been voted on yet.

Finally, I request that those who agree with my point of view, please post, but keep the conversation as respectful as I've tried to (or more) and refrain from any personal attacks as well. Doblerizing for the night.

ETA: I'm leaving for real this time. Really. See y'all tomorrow.

And change "indefinite tabling" to "undetermined time period tabling". There will be a definite time, but it hasn't been voted on yet.

Okay. In that case I think it's perfectly fair. Or that I missed my opportunity to change the current reality.

I have to preface this with the fact that I am in favor of opening the war discussion thread if a fourth is forthcoming.

Does this mean you're forthing it?

Jesus, that's an unwieldy word.

If a consensus on the war thread was really met and was a true consensus that really reflected what everyone wanted, then a vote now will uphold that consensus. Where's the harm in letting it go up for a vote? I don't really care about it one way or the other, but not allowing it to be voted on seems unfair. I'll be Wolfram's 4th second. And after scrolling through yet another explosion in the Bureaucracy thread, I'm going to bed.

Where's the harm in letting it go up for a vote?

Denise, there have been at least two dozen posts explaining the potential ramifications of reopening the war thread debate.

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.

A thread, I'd mention, that those people who were involved in the discussion overwhelming didn't want.

If it was, then good, because we replaced it. And in the negotiations, agreed that Old Way decisions weren't going to be retrospectively re-examined.

If it wasn't, if it was a good system, then you still don't get your War thread, because it was decided against the Old Way.

John! MWAH! A shiny kiss for you (don't tell Thuy) because your syllogism is right on.

And I'm anti-war thread. I'm part of that bullshit consensus and damn happy with the decision. I'm so against discussing it again that I cannot be against it anymore strongly.

Frankly, proposing the war thread again is pushing all of my hot buttons. It smacks of, "I WANT MY WAY and I want it now" and it totally sets off my bells about thread proliferation.

I don't really care about it one way or the other, but not allowing it to be voted on seems unfair.

But, if indeed it's already been decided that it's been grandfathered into "not now" status, it's more than fair.

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?

If I can count correctly, there is 1 topic in discussion, and another in the queue. That's what? 8 days. I'm guessing the "war" (these things the US engages in do not conform to my traditional understanding of war) will still be going on. If however the war is over and done with by then, we wouldn't have needed a War Thread anyway.

I'll be Wolfram's 4th second.

This means that the discussion on it should go to the Lightbulb, if a slot ever opens up. No more discussion on the ramifications of it should happen here, it seems.

even assuming the APG allows this issue to move to discussion, since the issue hasn't gotten a fourth second

This is spurious logic. Now, as of a couple weeks ago, no Active Posting Group moves a proposal to discussion. The fifthing of a proposal causes this automatically. If you cannot get another person to support your proposal, then you do not have enough like-minded people to make it worth a formal Light Bulb debate. That's all. If no more than four people will second a formal proposal, then no more than four would vote for it, and it would lose anyway, right?

So the relevancy of the thread I'm even proposing may be stale and moot by that point.

Part of the idea of having a process is that we not do anything hastily, anything that won't last. If you really think the need for a War Talk Thread will be gone in 3 weeks, then it wasn't something worth creating in the first place. Threads are built for endurance.