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.

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

At the risk of getting my ass handed to me for this - IIRC that procedure involved inviting the offender into B'cy to confront the allegations made against him.

The bannee in question never had that opportunity, and the banning came in large part because said bannee tried to get his say in and reregistered to that effect. Without rehashing all the stuff about his ban, you'd have to admit that a ban done through the voted in procedure is much more fair (which is why we came up with that procedure) whereas we could be a little more lenient with a ban that happened before that procedure.

Now please don't hand me my ass for that.

Hey, if I could get together a recall and boot Bush I would.

Dude, you want we should go back and use our NEW PROCEDURE THAT WE JUST IRONED OUT to revist everything that we did before?

I'm having a bit of deja vu here, because didn't we already explain a million times why NUH-UH?