Betsy, Lightbulbs is open for you.

In other words, trust the Buffistas to avoid all the things you say you hated about this thread.

Wolfram, I don't trust that. Because it keeps happening. Immortaliz(s)ation? Dude. You can't stop.

Backing away before my ish becomes my war.

100 people decide for 900. I'm thinking it's a problem, but I'm working within the confines of it, because there seems no way around it. It's the elephant in the corner of every decision by vote. The illusion of consensus.

Wolfram, I don't trust that. Because it keeps happening. Immortaliz(s)ation? Dude. You can't stop.

Don't take everything so seriously, Allyson. It was a simple spelling question, and it's what we do here.

Are you saying you don't trust the Buffistas or are you saying you don't trust me? Because if it's the latter, well at least you can trust the Buffistas to keep me in check. Or haven't you been paying attention?

Allyson, I can see you're feeling pessimistic generally. FWIW, we do yammer eternally, and I think the willingness to yammer is a sign that we're, you know, not going off the deep end into Weirdoland. Sure, 100 seem always to decide for 900, but the 900 do have the opportunity to decide; they just choose not to vote.

I mean, the lurkers could organize and stage a lurky protest and vote No on everything that gets voted on, until we were a muddle of failed proposals and recrimination, but, ummmm, why bother? (Also, how would the lurkers organize? Hey, that's kind of a neat question!)

I keep my hand in, and therefore have faith that it will mostly all work out in a way I can live with. The more hands kept in, the more people can live with the results, the less of a need for panic mode.

The more hands kept in, the more people can live with the results, the less of a need for panic mode.

I'm just concerned that when there's too much yammering, that also causes not only panic, but bad feelings that we didn't get when we just talked rather than voted.

I don't think voting is a bad method of counting who talked pro and who talked con. I think we're taking it really (way too) seriously though, and it's hurting us.

I agree with Cindy, except for there was bad feeling when we discussed and didn't vote. I had bad feeling then. Also, I am reading over the WX Bureacracy thread for Nutty, and we had a whole kerfluffle about merging threads.

Although there are 100 people deciding for 900, before there was whoever showed up.

Also, shoot me now, because I am skimming, like 1000 posts on thread naming.

I don't think voting is a bad method of counting who talked pro and who talked con. I think we're taking it really (way too) seriously though, and it's hurting us.

I think I'm starting to agree with Plei as to just how wise Cindy is.

Voting was supposed to make things easier and nicer. It's a testament to us that we've not disintegrated with some of the sniping that's been done over some of these issues.

As it is, I know I put on my super-cranky asshat when the Tim thread discussion started, and at the time I felt I had some valid objections which helped drive my asshatness.

Today? Fuck it. Tim deserves a thread. Let's give him one.

And I would not be surprised if this flip-flop fills Allyson with a seething hatred of me. If it does, I'm happy to report for the brutal, painful ass-beating of her choice.

But will she beat your asshat or your actual ass?

I suspect there will be beating of my ass with the asshat.