A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Exactly. Wolfram -- Why didn't you ask Michael about the sitch before posting your social-capital-reducing plea?
Um, I did. Michael wants to come back. He'd love to come back. But he did not want to be the person who causes all these feelings. I posted this on my own accord because I wanted this issue addressed by the community. Michael did not go around asking Buffistas to post stuff on his behalf, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to come back.
And when it comes to social-capital I've resigned myself to being a spendthrift. People still think I'm the guy who wants to change the board (I don't), wants to revisit all the old issues (I don't), doesn't care who he hurts in his defense of a banned individual (I do), and pretty much can't let it go (I can).
Second---if he's willing to wait for two months then why are any of us talking about it?
Askye, Steph, everyone - telling Michael to wait two more months on a maybe is just not right. Either the issue is up for discussion in two months or it's not.
He doesn't want to wait one more day. He thought as I did that the suspension would be lifted after two months, and it wasn't. His email to the stompies was timed to approach that date and he was told to wait two more months and then maybe it can be brought up but probably not. That's a long way from, "wait two months and we'll discuss it".
But he did not ask me to spend social capital on this. He did not reregister so he could present his side. If you want to know if he's "willing" to wait, what choice does he have?
Wheeeeeeee! Just lifted from Beep me!
Announcement
Jacqueline Zahas and David Smay announce their engagement to be married.
Really. No kidding.
May, 2004.
He was not suspended. He was banned.
Jacqueline Zahas and David Smay announce their engagement to be married.
We don't have to vote on that, do we?....
Congrats to JZ and DS. May you never have to use the word quorum during your wedding planning.
Quorum came up today when I was reading about how to format minutes for corporations and beacuse of B'cracy I knew what it was. The only good thing that came out of the whole quorum mess in my opinion.
It's hard to hold a minority opinion and not feel piled on or ignored, but speaking for myself, I'm glad people do. Agreeing with me is not a prerequisite for my respect or admiration and I would say most Buffistas are this way, even if that sometimes gets lost in the vehemence that this issue seems to bring up.
We don't have to vote on that, do we?....
Only on your choice of entree.
Okay. So. Resolved: There shall be no insulting of holders of minority opinions Bureaucracy thread in future. Yes? Yes? It does nothing to help and everything to hinder civil conversation.
Trudy, was this snottiness really necessary? I'm asking, as a general rule, that yelling not be an accepted tactic on Bureaucracy. I don't see as how you've got a right or a reason to get snotty with me, when all I'm trying to do is police the tone of this thread (explicitly not its content).
Can we please, all of us, strive to be nice, whatever we're arguing about? And "He did it first" isn't a good enough reason to abandon nice. Do I have to whip out my fake communist propaganda joke all over again? (Okay, I thought it was funny.)
