Otherwise let's put it in the queue for discussion, and we can debate about the pros and cons of even having such a thread.

But the proposal on whether the time limit applies to previous decisions got seconded first, and it logically should be decided first.

But you want to bring up the war thread again as a separate thing even though it's been voted down and we've been talking about the war in Natter.

Right askye. And the old system wasn't subject to the moratorium, and (arguing in the alternative) even if it was subject to the moratorium the fact that we're now at war creates a significant change in circumstance to bear a board wide discussion and vote on the issue of a separate thread. And it's gotten four seconds. That's it in a nutshell.

Can someone (Deena maybe?) Nilly the points in the discussion (some might be at WXing), where we said votes were for things going forward?

Can somebody Nilly to the place where somebody asked "Does this mean we're reconsidering all the old pre-vote decisions?" and the answer was "no"?

[Great minds, Cindy!]

If there's a place to discuss the war (Natter) then why create another?

And the old system wasn't subject to the moratorium

Right, but we are discussing grandfathering moratoriums over for recent decisions arrived at under consensus. That's a procedural and transitional issue that probably needs to be addressed, and would (possibly) resolve the war thread vote or any other revisiting vote issues.

Cindy. I can't. I have a good memory for black words on white. I can see the post, but I don't know how to nilly without the search function.

If you want, I can go back through bureacracy and find it... which should delay things until sometime next week. *g*.

I think it was even Victor who said it first, if that's any help to anyone who can find it.

You can threadsuck and then control-F to search, FYI.

oh, duh, okay, I'll find it.