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?

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

Well, not actually. But your point still stands.

I've gone back and forth on this in the past. Right now, my feeling comes down to this. The entire situation has gotten so disruptive that there's no way this person could come back without causing massive amounts of bad feeling and divisiveness. And this is due in large part to his own actions. So while I can envision a situation in which we might want to reconsider a ban (in something like 6 months or a year, not nearly this soon), I don't think this particular case is one of them.

IIRC that procedure involved inviting the offender into B'cy to confront the allegations made against him.

You're right, Wolfram (thanks for the e-mail, by the way) -- I think everyone does recognize that not inviting Michael to B'cy to discuss the allegations against him WAS a mistake.

In any case, since this issue can't be revisited for 2 more months, I agree with Dana that we should move on for now.

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

Wolfram doesn't seem to be asking to revisit EVERYthing, just THIS thing.

A guy got sentenced under the old laws and it seems reasonable to ask the governor for a pardon or at least leniency under the new ones.