board77

Especially since you evidently need so little help in doing so.

*is proud*

Oh, wait... my insult radar is going off...


GRRRR!



*~Pips~*

Actually, that was more of a left-handed compliment than an insult.

Back-handed compliment?

Now we'll be getting ttbk in here yelling, too.

Oh wait, I meant to write something else besides my insightfully substantive post above . . .

. . . am I missing something, or does this committee process lend itself to an altogether un-Entish race to stack the committee with people on one side or another of the question that is to be considered, that is, whether or not to hold a vote? Not that anyone would ever stoop so low as to use procedure to trump substance, but could not someone just wait until they have the clear majority lined-up, then start this process? Or, as in this case where such prep-work has not been done, can't six opponents of a vote (or of the likely result of a vote) simply rush in to be the first six volunteers to fill out the full committee?

Hey, can we have a revote on the process for a revote? Do I need to get together a committee to . . . Okay, the last sentence was just kidding . . . it doesn't REALLY bother me, although it seems, now that the process is in the process of actually being used, that it might merit some examination at some point in the future (either to stymie the ability to manipulate the committee composition to ensure a specific decision, or to allow a . . . dare I say it . . . petition process for bringing such a question [I recognize that, by writing this without going back to read our charter {which is now nearly as long as the entire set of federal regulations covering a multi-trillion dollar securities industry of which I am sad to say I can be accused of authoring a fair portion}, I lay myself open to looking quite foolish, but you know, I seem to enjoy that, so what the hell!!!])

Teh great and powerful southpaw wrote:

... doesn't REALLY bother me, although it seems, now that the process is in the process of actually being used, that it might merit some examination at some point in the future

I know that the term "guinea pig" has been tossed around here a lot, but frankly I am glad that we are able to "test out" this procedure like this. No one ever guaranteed that the processes as written couldn't bear a little refinement in the future...


And ttbk could use a little topspin, from time to time. IMHO.

Pippin4242 wrote:

But do we want people to think we've got stuff to hide? Even if we do, it will create an impression of ill intention.

The thread's been throuroughly read Pips. I don't think we'll look like we have anything to hide. I think it will look like a gesture of good will. Just MHO though.

In terms of effects it's a no-win situation. Leave it up, and you hurt people by letting them see things. Take it down, and you hurt people by letting them IMAGINE what they're missing.

Actually, imagining for the people mentioned in the thread isn't a possibility anymore. They fully know what was said.

Right...but if it HAD been deleted, it would have looked, as Pips points out, as if were hiding something Really Bad. Even though, as you note, there is little doubt that every word and punctuation mark had already been dutifully passed on by well-meaning folks here. It just would have looked bad to others...or so I have heard.

Like I said, I don't know the people involved very well at all, but I am very interested in seeing a good precedent set for this sort of thing.

Agreed. What purpose does it serve? It's already been read.

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

Axordil wrote:

Right...but if it HAD been deleted, it would have looked, as Pips points out, as if were hiding something Really Bad.

Agreed.

Lidless wrote:

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

Very true. But you don't have to leave the mess there to dry out. You can wash it away down the sink.

If this metaphor leads to me cleaning a toilet, I will be rather miffed.

Axordil wrote:

I am very interested in seeing a good precedent set for this sort of thing.

As someone astutely pointed out elsewhere, we will never have to deal with this sort of thing again, since the board is now open and invitations are thankfully a thing of the past. (Or perhaps that isn't what you meant by 'this sort of thing.')

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

But you can clean it up if its been smeared all over the mirror. (Not quite sure that applies.)

But if the toothpaste "somehow" gets smeared all over the dog, and then the dog leaves the house and permanently stains the neighbor's prize couch or something, going back and throwing out the empty tube of toothpaste doesn't really help anymore.

And I'm not sure what to make of that, except I'm pretty sure that it's up to Mom to wash the dog.

Or, if you're really cheap, you can leave the toothpaste lying around so that you can scrape some onto your toothbrush after every meal until you've used it all up . . . just to be complete about the possibilities.

Cerin--

I'm thinking more about the general principle of making sure these committee thingies work.

I am also interested in seeing that the proper balanced tone is conveyed in regards to how B77 means to be seen by others. If it is possible for a herd of ferrets to have a tone.

Metaphors do tend to go this way here, don't they?