Thanks Jon. But what I neglected to add was, if we vote and pass the grandfather proposal, it can only delay for six months, not prevent, any of those prior decisions being brought up for discussion and vote, should anybody want to challenge any of them.

I think we could use the six months break, from old business at least. I could, anyway.

Is that more clear?

And if I want none of our old decisions brought up for voting at all?

Is that a choice? I think I'm just confused as to what the point is? We wait six months to vote whether or not we want to demolish Bureaucracy, or we can do it tomorrow.

This is what this means, yes?

I'm going to just say it: But wouldn't it be easier if people would drop the $1.50 words and write in language that won't send some of us running for our dictionaries?

I'm sorry you think it's show-offy, Monique, but I genuinely talk that way. I like new words, and like talking about them, and what I really like, in rules-y documents, is saying something and being exact in my meaning so it can't be misinterpreted or twisted later.

(Actually, that's why I wanted to use the word "interdict" instead of "challenge" in the grandfathering proposal: "challenge" is a general word, that just means to question, or stop a thing at the border and make it show you its passport. "Interdict" means categorically forbidding something, which is a more exact description of what the grandfathered "no, you can't propose these yet" proposal was getting at.)

(Okay, "interdict" is a really cool word, too.)

(Okay, I learned it last week and had to look it up to make sure I was using it properly. But still, in the above example? I think it's a better -- more specific -- word than "challenge".)

This is going to sound rude as hell, but I feel like the big words are dropped in there more to impress other people with your vocabularies, rather than to get the point across.

Well, some of us just talk that way.

Seriously, when the big poli/sci words get dragged out, it's not to impress. It's just that, in the right context, these are terms that don't (well, shouldn't) allow for ambiguity. But you're right, there is a problem when not everyone has the same familiarity with those words and concepts that it actually creates, rather than prevents, misunderstanding.

So call people on it when you see it. But it's really not meant to intimidate or impress.

Well, I think the hope is that nothing will be challenged. But in case there's some decision or other in place that's giving someone hives, it could be challenged. What we're voting on is not-now, no way vs. maybe, in six months. At least as I understand it.

I just wanted to point out that my tag was up before this discussion about vocab. Comes from a fabulous writer named Ron Koertge.

But, I have a question. Can we bring up whether or not we want to have voting anymore? Is that also in the 6 month grandfather thing?

With you on the precision of language loving. But Brenda's right, when all don't share the same lexicon, it obscures rather than reveals.

ed. to add: I reallyreally wanted to use 'obfuscates' there, rather than obscures. Heh.

What we're voting on is not-now, no way vs. maybe, in six months.

Nope, that's not it. I think some of the difficulty we're having with this issue is that it feels like what we're doing is opening things up to be monkeyed with starting on a certain date. That's not it.

Right now, things we voted on cannot be revisited for six months, pass or fail. Things that have never been voted on can be brought up at will, if anyone has a mind to.

Should Betsy's resolution pass, that won't be the case. Things we've voted on will have their own clock. Things we discussed under the old rules cannot be brought up until September 20th. The only things that can be brought for a vote would be entirely new issues that have never been addressed.

We wait six months to vote whether or not we want to demolish Bureaucracy, or we can do it tomorrow.

Why would we want to demolish Bureaucracy?

I like new words, and like talking about them, and what I really like, in rules-y documents, is saying something and being exact in my meaning so it can't be misinterpreted or twisted later.

I cant misinterpret something I can't understand. I'm unable to interpret it at all.

When you guys write these things, I wish you would write them for an audience that is reading quickly from work and needs a clear, concise, SIMPLE explanation of the proposal so that I can make an informed decision on what this is all about without having to call erinaceous for an expert opinion.

I often feel that I'm simply not smart enough to make a decision about a message board devoted to cult/homoerotic television shows. We don;t talk this way on thread. We speak in simpler terms.