Jessica, I never mentioned that I was offended that the discussion went on.

Kat, I don't know why you think I'm singling you out. The word I used was "people." I read over 500 posts this morning. I honestly have no idea who posted what. The impression I got was that a fair number of people were offended that this had been discussed in Spoilers before it was brought before everyone.

I brought up the grandfathering. It came up late at night because we were discussing it late at night. It didn't come up before then because, frankly, I didn't even remember it until someone on the other side started ranting about "bullshit consensus."

The timing was unfortunate, I'm more than willing to grant that. I do think though, that if people actually looked at the conversation surrounding it, it's fairly apparent how it arose.

Speaking of perceptions, though, I find it disturbing that the question of whether the G clause might apply has fallen so strictly on "party lines." I find it upsetting that not one person in favor of the change is willing to entertain the possiblity that it might. Because try as I might, I can't see the answer as that obvious, that cut-and-dried. This leads me to the conclusion, which may be erroneous, that people (not all, but certainly some) are perfectly ok with arbitrarily setting aside decisions made by a voting majority when it might interfere with getting what they want. That's perception, not fact, and I'm trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But that's what it sometimes looks like from this side.

The impression I got was that a fair number of people were offended that this had been discussed in Spoilers before it was brought before everyone.

It was discussed in Spoilers?

Okay, maybe I've been skimming a little too much lately because all I remember were a few people mentioning how frustrating it was to not be able to talk about the BCS in the regular Angel thread. The propsal came as a surprise to me and I genuinely don't remember anyone talking about it in Spoilers.

But then the last few weeks have been hell for me so my visits have been sporadic at best. I'll have to go back and find this conversation.

Because try as I might, I can't see the answer as that obvious, that cut-and-dried.

I've already outlined my thoughts on the grandfathering issue. I don't see it as cut and dried. But I do see precedent having equal weight as a written FAQ.

Okay, maybe I've been skimming a little too much lately because all I remember were a few people mentioning how frustrating it was to not be able to talk about the BCS in the regular Angel thread.

Well yeah, that was pretty much it. And the white-fonting of the anti-spoilers sparked some venting, too. Other than that, there were maybe three or four posts after Plei said "I'm gonna propose this in B'cy, anyone got wording suggestions?" and then Jim went ahead and proposed it. It wasn't anything lengthy or organized.

I swear that most of the conversation in Spoilers over the last few days has been trash-talking the cilantro-lovers. (Or haters; I can't remember which.)

There's no MO in Spoilers to bash the unspoiled.

Kat, I don't know why you think I'm singling you out.

Perhaps because you quoted Plei's response to what I had said as bearing repeating?

Cindy, I went over to Spoilers after the Buffy finale this season to because I was curious to see what the discussion leading up to the ep would be. I didn't expect that there would be major spoilers for the next season already, but hey, that was my doing and my choice. But in general, I prefer to stay totally unspoiled.

Where is this unified front? I am starting to find this focus troubling, because I think that although there was admittedly venting, venting that was coarser than what people who don't hang in spoilers might expect, this was no kabal, and that's what it's starting to sound like.

Fair enough. The Grenada thing was just me trying to think of a big/little analogy, and was probably a clumsy one. The point I was trying to make was that the fact that the issues had obviously been discussed at length in Spoilers was not a cause for offense, just that it left me feeling a little overwhelmed. I hope that part, at least, was clear.

I'm going ask a couple of things from everyone.

Right now there is a lot of emotional soreness here. So please, everybody, be aware that what would normally be taken as just a normal comment will be seen as a poke. Be extra careful in phrasng.

And in reverse, please be aware that I don't think anyone is out to get anyone else. So if you see something that you take as a poke please consider that it could be just poor wording. try and think of an interpetation that is not a poke - allowing for the poor and haty phrasing. And then respond as though it was phrased that way. Cause I bet it wasn't intended as a poke.

Perhaps because you quoted Plei's response to what I had said as bearing repeating?

The part of my post you interpreted as a personal attack was on another topic entirely. It was not directed at any one person, nor was it a response to any specific post. Okay?