Heeeeeeey, Trudy's blinding us with logic!

I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with that. In a community, especially an on-line community like this one, all that we have -- all that binds us together and makes us a community -- is our relationships with each other. It is vitally important to me that people not lie to us as a group, that people take our (really not that hard-to-follow) rules seriously, that they believe we're serious when we ask them to stop doing something.

I agree with this. I've been dumped on a lot, and I also know there are other people who agree with the minority but don't feel like getting dumped on. So they aren't posting.

I wouldn't characterize it as a "dumping", but I can understand why it feels that way. If people aren't willing to pipe up and be heard, then what can we do about it? This is one opinion I have that I'm willing to defend publicly. I'm not so much worried about whether the majority agrees with me or not.

t temper class="snaps for a moment" Oh please, don't bring out the lurkers agree with me card.

Please? Because this is getting to be absurd.

You're being disagreed with, not freaking dumped on. t /temper

I find the cries of "dumped on" to be frankly a little insulting to those disagreeing with you.

The disagreeing isn't always exactly nice, PMM.

And saying "people with minority opinions step out of the discussions" is NOT the same things as "All your lurkers am belong to us".

The disagreeing isn't always nice on both sides, though.

And saying the same thing a hundred times only serves to make people cranky.

And saying "people with minority opinions step out of the discussions" is NOT the same things as "All your lurkers am belong to us".

Ain't too far off, though. It's a statement that can't be proven and gives the illusion of support. Show me the difference.

I think that people who hold a minority position are going to feel "dumped on," but that's the definition of "minority" -- more people disagree with you than agree with you. It's a numbers thing.

And you know, everyone's in the minority at one time or another.

All I want for Christmas is for us to stop talking about this right now, based on what the admins said.

And saying the same thing a hundred times only serves to make people cranky.

In an ongoing discussion when you are trying to bring people over to your side of the matter that's pretty much your only option.

Ain't too far off, though. It's a statement that can't be proven and gives the illusion of support. Show me the difference.

I'm not trying to prove support. I'm saying that this form of discussion scares of dissenting opinion. Sometimes I DON'T agree with that dissention.

I retract the phrase dumped on and replace it with, disagreed with. And I'm not bringing up lurkers, there are folks who have posted on this issue in the past who tend to side with the minority here. I'm not "outing" them, you'll have to do your own homework on this one.

And saying the same thing a hundred times only serves to make people cranky.

Frankly it's impossible to carry on a meaningful discussion with many people without seeming to repeat yourself many times. I'm sorry that when I'm in the minority there are 10 Wolfram posts to everyone else's 1 post, but how do you suggest carrying on a multiple conversation when a lot of people are responding in different ways to each of your posts?

Here's the thing -- and Trudy, please don't feel like this is directed at you; it's just my reply to anyone who thinks that banned posters should get a second chance:

Warn -- Warn(2) -- suspend -- ban IS the procedure that was approved by a majority of Buffistas. Not unanimous, but a majority.

I can sit and complain all day about how I really really REALLY want George W. Bush out of office, and I didn't vote for him, etc., etc.

But a majority did. So I have to live with it.

It's not a perfect comparison, but I think it works to illustrate the point.