Yet when a poster comes forward and explains that there is a problem in their opinion, a few others do backflips to try to demonstrate that no problem exists.

Yeah, but people don't disagree simply because they're ornery and contrary. (Mostly.) They disagree because they see it differently. The only way to even begin to see if there's any consensus is for folks to weigh in on the subject, and discuss the merits of the complaint. That's where you find out if there's enough of a groundswell to take it to a vote.

Previous to voting, that's also how we came up with our consensus decisions.

Talky meat for someone who doesn't like conflict:

some unnamed individuals who are present for the discussion are selfish assholes. I am not surprised to find some serious resistance.

Excuse me?

I don't think that any complaint of another poster's behavior needs to be a call for a warning. In my opinion, it's perfectly legitimate for Buffista A to come into this thread and say that Buffista B is being insensitive and could someone please ask him/her to stop it, without saying Buffista B needs to be Warned.

Bev, as Hec pointed out, my position *was* a middle ground. It was *not* identical to Steph's.

I brought up other non-news things later, and got jumped on for it, SPECIFICALLY because, while maybe I should have kept my mouth shut, I didn't want Elena to feel unfairly singled out by just letting them slide.

My reasons remain the ones that Shawn stated in her long post on her feelings about the purpose of the thread.

I have a ton of thoughts (my thoughts are heavy) about the last 300 posts or so, but I can't make them make sense yet. But I just wanted to do that thing where you jump in and say something in someone's defense even though he or she didn't ask you to, hoping that he or she won't find it presumptuous. God, I hate all the qualifiers.

FWIW, I've seen Rafmun post elsewhere, because I've recently lurked in some new threads (don't worry, Canadians, I'm not stalkery. Much.) I also think he's bringing up some valid issues. Not everyone agrees they are issues, but, hey, what else is new? In any case, he's got a right to post 'em, and I haven't had any trouble following his line of thought or discerning what he's referring to (at least, I think I'm following).

Oh deer loward people, Rafmun does post elsewhere, in Natter this morning, for example. And he's married to a long-time poster and he knows the culture, so it's not like he's clueless, okay? He has some points he'd like addressed. Let's do that, and not attack him.

If I were married to a long-time Kiwani, I wouldn't assume I knew the culture well enough to go in and insult the whole group. It's rude to go in to a group of people who are strangers -- or to whom you are a stranger -- and assert the ways in which they suck. It just is. Other people on this board are married, and if their previously-hadn't-posted spouses came in and offered their opinion on how we suck, I'd react the same way.

This isn't health insurance. Spousal status doesn't imply automatic inclusion.

His post in Natter, to ask for directions, does not constitute in my mind, a member of the community.

I'm sorry if I misattributed posts or positions. I wish you all well. I can't do this any more.

Yet when a poster comes forward and explains that there is a problem in their opinion, a few others do backflips to try to demonstrate that no problem exists.

I'm really trying to stay out of this, but I have to take issue with this assertion, as it flat out accuses anybody here who doesn't agree there's a problem, of perfidy and obfuscation, which is a) patently ridiculous, and b) a little insulting.

Excuse me?

Beverly, rafmun said upthread that some people are selfish and don't have interest in the board health in general, I think this is what Shawn is talking about.

(psst, Teppy, it's "Kiwanian". Unless grandpa's been lying about it all these years.)