What is insulting or offensive about it?

Because you made a banning crack earlier this evening and you saw, first hand, that the reaction was not one of amusement. So choosing to poke people again and continue this implication that we ban people willy-nilly insults this community and offends me, one of its members.

The implied presumption that you're the sole defender of free speech here.

Where is that? Show me where my use of the word ban implies that I think I'm the only one who cares about it?

Can you trust me if I say this is so?

Certainly. I'm merely stating my point, and arguing it. Doesn't mean that other people don't have the same feeling, and I apologize if anyone took it that way.

I made the crack earlier after being told that, because I wasn't on World Crossing before, I shouldn't be allowed to

make any decisions (or) vote on any topics.

As far as my statement earlier in this thread, I was asking a serious question. What are the consequences? The general feeling seems to be that there aren't any, really, which is a valid answer to the question.

and I apologize if anyone took it that way.

Let's go from here then, and get this back on track.

Don't you think? The issue, not the personalities, not the flareups, not the friction? More light less heat?

I vote that Kat has the coooooolllest cell-phone.

Oh wait...we're not on that one.

Six months! It is the only right answer (henceforth, the Jesse approach).

Gandalfe, I don't recall you ever being told you couldn't do something because you weren't there. I believe one person, upset at the trend and tone of the conversation, made a remark that was never intended to be taken seriously.

As for the consequences, I don't see that as a problem. If you bring it up, you'll be directed to the post where the decision was publicized. If you continue to bring it up, most likely people will ignore you because they don't want to talk about it anymore. The more you bring it up, the greater number of people who ignore. That's just the way people are.

edited to add: That's the way I am. If it's been asked and answered, answered again, then I ignore if it's asked again and again. YMMV.

6 months is the only right answer. And see how well it worked for her? 8 people short.

Okay, secret voting confession time:

I too was a cult of the verity of only 50 people. But I knew people would be voting for numbers far lower than 50. So in order to achieve fiftyosity, I felt compelled to vote for something higher than 50. I deviated from my true devotion to 50 in order to serve 50.

Damn.

6 months. So if we really want 6 months, then I want to see 9 months on the ballot so we end up with 6 months.

So if we really want 6 months, then I want to see 9 months on the ballot so we end up with 6 months.

But the earlier one was math, and this one is just counting. Which I suppose is math, too, but easier math.

Anyway.

There won't be any averaging involved, so vote your conscience. Which, if your conscience is any good, will be 3.

Which, if your conscience is any good, will be 3.

Thank god I stuffed my conscience in a trunk months ago. Six months ago.

What are the consequences?

I'd say that that would probably be an instance where DNFtEC would work.

I still haven't decided whether I like 3 months or 6 months better. I'm leaning more towards 6 months to cut down on clutter, but more towards 3 months to allow for changes when neccesary. So I'm still reading and thinking.

t opening pandora's big ole box

Are we really going with limited choices and a straight X number of months or 6 months on a ballot? Cause if we did, I skimmed it.