WRT the Previously thread, I'm not seeing the problem with leaving the ballot as is and then seeing how people vote on the issue.

I'm not saying "take it off the ballot". I'm just lobbying for a no vote. A few others said they were for it, so I'm chiming in with a nay. That's part of what this thread is for.

I hadn't thought about whether or not Sang Sacre does or doesn't fulfill a special place before. But now, I'm thinking I don't want to go there, in terms of putting the kaibosh on it.

I am also good with the thought of seeing what happens with the changes we are making at the code level, and any change that passes and is made and then considering a second level of housekeeping, only if necessary. Let's clean up the little bits and take a look again.

God knows with real housekeeping, I rarely tear out the closets, until I try see what things look like when I pick up my clothes. Or that would be true if I ever had time to clean.

FTR, the ballot will undoubtedly change and be massaged. Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

Personally, I think that the Previously thread will become previously on Buffy and Angel naturally when the syndicated Angel repeats start.

Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

It's more than accurate. It's mandatory.

So there.

But there is also an awful lot of Natter when things get slow.

So what? It's what we do, and what we've always done, in almost all of the threads since we were on TableTalk.

Personally, I think that the Previously thread will become previously on Buffy and Angel naturally when the syndicated Angel repeats start.

Absolutely. But not if #4 passes.

(just making sure you read that ballot question correctly, sumi)

God knows with real housekeeping, I rarely tear out the closets, until I try see what things look like when I pick up my clothes.

But Kat... if you don't totally tear out your closets every time you clean house, how on Earth do you ever get new closests?

Sorry. Sorry. The silliness was too tempting, and I though we could use some levity.

Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

Yepperdoodle.

Well, we're not voting yet -- are we?

Are very important points. Even if we need to remove threads eventually to help solve the problem, getting rid of threads that are getting extremely minimal posts is going to have ZERO net effect on the problem, and will only serve to upset the people who do want to keep those threads around, even if they almost never get posts.

If you stop discussing removing threads that cause people to be upset because they want to keep them, then you're pretty much going to stop all such discussions, aren't you? And how does that fix anything? That just keeps you where you are, working at least twice the allowable number of mySQL connections.

As for having ZERO net effect, that's not true. AGAIN, this problem can't be solved just by looking for one solution that will alleviate 80%, 50%, or even 5% of the problem. Looking at the coding may help, but cleaning house will as well. And doing things like combining threads that get minimal posts, deleting other threads, reducing/elminating numberslutting, and combining responses need to be looked at as things that, when taken together as a whole, will help.

Well, Monique is telling us in another thread (or here, I've lost track) that it's like a diet. Little things add up.

I don't know where either. I think here and Sartre. I get confused, what with the conversation occuring in three threads at once.

But Kat... if you don't totally tear out your closets every time you clean house, how on Earth do you ever get new closests?

t Different computer with cut and paste capabilities

Last time I cleaned my closets, really cleaned 'em, we got brand new closet stuff, pulled out the old and remodelled. So not that far fetched.

I'm also thinking that some explanation for the cleaning is in order. Anyone want to write it? 'Cause I'm busy yelling "NOT IT"