Wait---

We don't even know if he wants to come back? We're just going on what Wolfram has said?

I've been under the impression that Wolfram as speaking directly for Michael because he couldn't post here.

I strongly believe that he deserves the honor, and will be here tonight to post it.

You know what? I can understand that, and I think maybe he deserves the honor, too (though I think the thread should be more specific than just "a Tim Minear thread").

But what I don't understand is why it's so important that it has to be done right now, at the expense of procedural votes that were seconded a long time ago, and continue to be bumped out of position in the queue.

This is my objection to this Tim thread proposal. I feel very strongly about this. Probably as strongly as yuou feel about the man getting a thread, Allyson.

The new season doesn't start for months, I don't understand why we can't wait and talk about this instead of doing it RIGHT NOW.

I think Tim has a healthy psyche which will be able to withstand not only waiting a few days, weeks or months to create a thread in his honor, but even withstand a little healthy discussion about it.

Why didn't you ask Michael about the sitch before posting your social-capital-reducing plea?

Oy. Oy oy. If anyone wants to do anything that reduces their social capital, nebulous as that concept is, so be it. This qualification makes me tense, however, as does Trudy's yelling about it.

Maybe it did reduce this magic popularity cash, maybe it didn't. But implying that this effect should have any effect on whether or not someone stands up for what they want/believe in does lend a bit of credence to the "piled on" complaints.

On the other hand, Trudy, it's not what you do, but how and when you do it. And OF COURSE it can reduce social capital. That's what social capital is ... every single sentence you post, whether affirming majority opinion or contradicting it, can affect your capital.

Worrying about it will make you insane.

We don't even know if he wants to come back? We're just going on what Wolfram has said?

I've been under the impression that Wolfram as speaking directly for Michael because he couldn't post here.

From upthread: Wolfram "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" May 12, 2003 1:00:50 pm EDT

Am I to understand that, upon receiving the recent Stompy notice to wait another two months, M/S/A has requested other Buffistas to intervene on his behalf?

Nope. I am doing it of my own initiative and accord.

It's got nothing to do with a dissenting opinion, Trudy.

but even withstand a little healthy discussion about it.

Do we have healthy discussions anymore?

It's not the fact that upset me, ita, but the statement of it.

And as long as we're opening up lighbulbs and proposing things here goes mine:

Any Buffista who gets a TV show gets a thread.

Do I have a second?

Trudy, I've been told this before, and I've always been glad when I've heeded it though my pride was stung, but I think you need to go chill.

I've spent oodles of social capital on berating Zoe, and being angry about the new procedures. I'm a firm believer in that those with the most social capital run the show.

Wolfram spent social capital on defending someone that hurt an assload of people. It disturbs me that Michael/Mieske/Anathema's feelings are somehow more important than the feelings of the dozens of Buffistas that he hurt/pissed off. He's not someone unfairly maligned, he's wrought havoc, and he's always expressed that he didnt understand, but now he does.

BronzeBeta is open. TWoP is open. Go forth and post there, Mikey.

And with that, I have to run out the damned door again.

I don't know Sean. I think talking about a new thread for a writer/producer most of us admire beats the heck out of anything else we've talked about in 5 months in this thread.

Let's just have a fun proposal. Thread for Tim proposal! Yay proposal! Whee proposal!

I also propose that all the Buffistas get nekkid right now.

>THE FACT THAT A DISSENTING OPINION REDUCES SOCIAL-CAPITAL AROUND HERE SUCKS

Trudy - I think that over-simplifies what Jon meant. I don't care for the phrase 'social capital' among friends, because it just sounds colder than it should (to my ears). But the idea it represents is solid. Social capital is just the idea behind the choose-your-battles philosophy. If my friends are going out to dinner, and everyone but me wants Chinese, and I insist we all must try this new Italian place, they might do it. But the next time we're planning on going for Chinese and I want Italian, they're going to think We already gave her her way last time. We want Chinese, dammit. And if I do it every time, no matter that I think Italian is the one true food, eventually, they're going to stop wanting me around when they're planning on going for Chinese (which can give me migraines). It's a social capital expenditure.

Nobody is saying Wolfram can't talk about this (nor are they saying it about you), but in my case, I'm asking him not to continue, because in my opinion, it's doing us (and him, and you, and mieskie) no good, or at least discussing it is doing less good than letting it lie would do.

I just think we've all been so unhealthy in this thread. It's scaring the shit out of me.

--eta

That was an xpost with a lot of people who said it better and shorter.

ita is right and I apologize for my loaded statement. I should have just said "Why didn't you ask Michael about the sitch before posting your plea?" and my main point would have been the same. I'm sorry to Wolfram and anyone else I may have offended.

Okay, so Micheal hasn't asked to come back at this point? As far as anyone knows he's accepted to wait for another two months and then see what the decision might be?