Why does conversation have to be broken out of existing conversation?

Huh? You're saying that you need a thread because of X--I'm saying I don't see X, please show it to me. That's all.

the plea for people to have a place where they can talk about BSG without being spoiled for Stargate has consistently fallen on deaf ears

Voted down != fallen on deaf ears. That's why we have a process, isn't it? Actually, was a BSG thread proposed and voted down? I know the sort of format ND prefers, but I'm not sure what action was taken in order to try and achieve it.

But since Sean asked, when was the last time we actually denied a new thread?

The TV Drama thread was denied last fall.

As for Amy's quotes of my post, I stand by them. Others will disagree with what I said, some will be upset. I know I should regret causing upheaval, but an honest thrashing out of an issue does not come about when everyone is being carefully polite with each other. When people fundamentally disagree on a situation, upset will occur. How we cope with that upset is what defines us as a community.

an honest thrashing out of an issue does not come about when everyone is being carefully polite with each other

While I don't think everyone can thrash without getting emotional I think that's a far cry from saying that no one can thrash honestly without impoliteness. Whyever should it be required?

You're saying that you need a thread because of X

Not need. Want. And when the desire for a gaming thread was brought up, several people (as Consuela pointed out, at least as many as post in other small threads) said they want too.

For that, we've been told we must try to have discussion elsewhere, or else you don't see the need.

I don't understand that.

Sean, for example, the idea for TV threads other than Boxed Set came from a lot of TV discussion taking place in Natter. At least that's the way I see it, and that's what I get from what ita's saying. We were already discussing a lot of shows, and when the conversation seemed to get too big, someone proposed having a dedicated place for it.

Okay. You tell me there's a reason you want a dedicated thread. I'm asking you to show me the reason. That's fair, no?

Saying you want a thread just because you want a thread is a different position from wanting a thread because you've tried to have the discussions you wanted and failed. I'm saying, give it a shot, this time with everyone actually knowing what's going on. You might find that conversation sustains itself quite well without a dedicated thread.

Or you might not. But then you'd have exhibit A.

I don't think this is always clearly stated, and I don't agree with the position. So far, Scrappy is the only one who has put the argument in a way that I agree with.

I am really not trying to be flippant here, but the fact is that some of us don't agree with your stance. Because we disagree, how can we put the argument in ways you agree with?

For that, we've been told we must try to have discussion elsewhere, or else you don't see the need.

no it has been voiced by one or some that they would like to see a discussion elsewhere before a dedicated thread. No one here can TELL you that you MUST do anything. goodness.

If the community votes then that is a decision for 6 months and if the vote is not what you want then it is a majority of a community that you voluntarily participate in that disagrees with you.

Propose all the freaking threads you want with this vote - get them out there - you can't be victimized if you actually put to a vote what you actually want. You can make the vote post different from the proposal orginally put up for discussion.

Okay. You tell me there's a reason you want a dedicated thread. I'm asking you to show me the reason. That's fair, no?

Saying you want a thread just because you want a thread is a different position from wanting a thread because you've tried to have the discussions you wanted and failed. I'm saying, give it a shot, this time with everyone actually knowing what's going on. You might find that conversation sustains itself quite well without a dedicated thread.

I am on record already in this discussion as being okay with that if the vote fails. I do think that's reasonable. However, I (and others) want it enough that we're going to try for a new thread. I (and others) don't think that's unreasonable either.

I am really not trying to be flippant here, but the fact is that some of us don't agree with your stance. Because we disagree, how can we put the argument in ways you agree with?

Yes, that does come across as a tautology, when I put it that way.

Let's put it this way. Scrappy's position that she wants to hear about gaming, even though she doesn't game makes sense to me.

The argument that new threads fragment the community holds no water at all. The fragmentation already happened, and frankly was always there.

The argument that fragmentation will destroy our community because it has destroyed so many other communities also holds no water at all, because it is highly selective, and completely ignores the other posting boards that allow individual user thread creation and are doing just fine, thank you.

I don't agree with those positions because these problems with the positions that I have pointed out are not being addressed. You say I'm just being obstinate and not agree with you. I am pointing out again that there are (from where I'm sitting) some seriously holes in your argument that you are not addressing. I might still disagree with you when all is said and done, but at least some attempt to address these problems would help to get me to at least understand your position, if not agree with it.