I agree with David. I loathe and despise the idea that there are "active" or "core" buffistas who have extra rights. And yes, I do remember that quantifying respect was my idea. I was wrong, OK?

I love Anne W's Little Buffistas on the Prairie analogy.

Agreed with those who say Buffista is not a nation and has neither citizens nor government. We are, however, a rough group of peeps, and anyone who has assembled an F2F can tell you peep-assembly requires at least one person to take some of the reins in order to get anything done. As with F2F peeps, it can be a different person for every event. And it's all cool.

The word "privilege" alarms me a little, because it's the sort of thing that sets apart one group from another. Stratification (e.g., representation) is a useful tool in government, but it can make a cocktail party an unfriendly -- competitive, exclusive -- place to be.

(Suddenly remembering a management article I read once: a social study in groups crossing busy thoroughfares. Like, how they get the gumption/critical mass to cross the street together, or whether, as at the F2F Saturday, I go streaking across in traffic and stand on the far side scoffing at my dinnermates who have waited for the light. The upshot of the article was that it's usually one or two people who actively say, Okay, let's go, step out into traffic, and everyone follows automatically.)

The upshot of the article was that it's usually one or two people who actively say, Okay, let's go, step out into traffic, and everyone follows automatically.)

Well, yeah, because the others know that it's the first ones out who'll be hit by the car, and then the car will stop, so they'll be okay.

For me, the social aspect is different than high school, and more along the lines of my adult meat space friends. There are some people people just flock to, and with good reason, and it is not just because those people 'do things' for us (although that's a valid reason, and is the reason, sometimes). I don't kid myself. It's a popularity thing. But the popularity is more earned than it was in high school, so the idea of it needn't leave that bitter aftertaste. It isn't based on money, looks, or glomming onto the right clique at the right time. They're just attractive people (in that they attract others) for whatever reason. They're bright, fun, funny, interesting, kind, direct, wise, honest, helpful, well-written, forgiving, protective, talented, insightful, have the group's best interests at heart, yada yada - insert your attractive feature here. We all have at least one of those qualities (I can't think of one of us that doesn't). Most of us have more than one. A good number of us have many. Some few of us seem to be blessed with virtually all.

For the record, when I use 'foamy', I don't necessarily mean physically attractive, so I'm not sure I see it only as a social lubricant, or if I do, it doesn't make me feel jaded with regard to the Buffistas. In Beer Bad, when Buffy said Want beer. Beer foamy! - she'd been reduced to letting her id do the talking. And collectively, Buffistas appeal to my id, my ego and my superego as well. I am triple-ly reduced to WANT BUFFISTAS. BUFFISTAS FOAMY! And that's a good thing.

I love Anne W. That is all.

t blushes

Also with the major Anne-love.

I love Anne, too. She took everything that was burbling inside my head, and made it all pretty. So I'm just gonna sit here on my front porch in my rocking chair in my sunbonnet drinking my ice tea and fanning myself and nod nod away.

I loathe and despise the idea that there are "active" or "core" buffistas who have extra rights.

The idea that core buffistas do, or should have extra rights?

I think what's mostly on the table is that core Buffistas exist, and that's the way it is. There are suggestions that levels of core be defined, the right of voting/decision making be restricted to those.

But the tenses in some people's posts worries me ... there is no platinum card core at the moment, unless I missed something.