I agree with everything that Nutty said.

As far as I can tell, if 100 people are being .02% hostile, it feels worse than 2 people being .02% hostile.

How do you get those 100 to tone it down without trying to get the two to tone it down too? Good luck with that.

It pretty much always feels worse to be in this sort of minority. But I don't think I've seen a marked difference in any given poster between them as minority member and them as majority member.

Until things escalate, of course, but escalation can be started by either side ...

t dashes in to b'cy, skims, has nothing to say, blows kisses to all and dashes back out

I've been puzzled by the strong reactions to some of Wolfram's posts, though, as you say, most of that has been apologized for.

I do think that there have been some harsh reactions to his posts, although he himself has remained very measured. And I do think the apologies point towards letting things go instead of carrying them on.

I have to say, I think I've seen nastiness too, not just on this issue, but also with this potential Tim thread.

Sean, I specified *today* because I see a distinct shift in tone between yesterday's posts and today's.

I think it's key, when treading in this thread, to distinguish between one day and the next (which admittedly can be hard to do when something is pissing you off), as between one poster and the next, and one issue and the next. And to really avoid taking things personally unless a specific point is being directed at you. Otherwise, hurt feelings tend to accumilate and boil over.

Point taken, Burrell.

And yours as well, ita.

I'll say one thing, this thread has largely cured me of the urge to make "me too" posts. They're hard to resist sometimes, but what in conversation would be one person saying something and a bunch of others nodding comes off as way more aggressive and loud in this context, which contributes to the hurty and/or hostile tone that people sometimes feel.

Jacqueline Zahas and David Smay announce their engagement to be married.

We don't have to vote on that, do we?....

Pfft. Of course we do. And I believe I'm just the person to propose it, since that means it can be... preferential voting!

So, it is proposed:

Hec and JZ have announced their engagement, to riotous fanfare and more than a few broken hearts. What do you think? Please rank the following options in order of righteousness:

A: It's a BEAUTIFUL LOVE STORY, alright?

B: I bet the music at the reception will kick ass.

C: NOOOO!! They were meant to marry MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

D: "WE ARE THE ZMAYHAS. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE."

E: "You can lose a wedding ring, but not a wedding ring tattoo."

F: Won't somebody think of the children?

G: Mole rats! ("The Queen! Protect the Queen!")

H: Billytea spent his social capital on this??

I: SPOOOOOOOON!!!

Any seconders? (Don't be shy.)

H: Billytea spent his social capital on this??

Bwah. Too funny billytea.

Billytea, that was hysterical.

And HEC!!! JZ!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

What about the moratorium? Should I let that quietly die, or should I formally propose it and bring it up for a vote? (I'm not trying to back out; I still approve of the idea, but I don't want to drag my Buffistas through any more hedgerows unnecessarily.)