ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
If I ever have to start a thread in Bike Racks I would not want the whole board discussing my intentions for a month.
Why would the board be discussing your intentions for a month if you started a thread in Bike Racks according to the clearly stated uses of the forum? They wouldn't. They would only be discussing your intentions if you started a thread in Bike Racks that wasn't in accordance with the clearly stated uses of the forum, and rightly so.
You believe that the tone of those Bike Racks threads were disrespectful. Don't you see that some people feel that the intense discussion by people outside those threads is in its way as disrespectful of the privacy of the people in those threads. I anticipate your reply that they don't deserve privacy or respect but I submit it was none of our business, just as intruders into a Bike Racks thread (and I was one) have no business there.
Quote:
In all the discussion in the last day I hope the amendment committee is not considering abandoning the 'rerouting' proposal
And I hope they are finally abandoning the senseless proposition to rewrite an entire section of the Charter so as to re-define the uses of two forums when all that is needed is a clarification of the current wording, and to put that clarification before the membership.
'Senseless', now that word is a trifle inflammatory in the circumstances of recent weeks.
This is fine if your position was the only one but that is not so, so the proposal is not senseless if it can satisfy both sides.
Quote:
in favour of just asking a loaded question about allowing mock threads in the Bike Racks or not.
Why is it a loaded question? Because we're afraid to say the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes? It is precisely the question that needs to be asked. That is what this entire song and dance has been about.
Because it is a question designed to get a single answer. With a little time I expect I could come up with a question designed to elicit an opposite answer.
Quote:
The rerouting proposal satisfies the different points of view in this matter.
The rerouting proposal goes to absurd lengths to accommodate a use of Bike Racks that the writer of the proposal has already stated she sees no further rationale to support.
'Absurd' is another use of inflammatory language that is not welcome at this stage. It was one that was used unfortunately at the start of this dispute. An argument that you disagree with might strike you as absurd but the use of the word is not particularly helpful in debate. Imagine your reaction if other people said your views were absurd.
Can you give any logical reason why, you, Tosh, personally require the rewriting of an entire section of the Charter to re-define the uses of two perfectly functional forums so that you can pretend to have a fight with someone? Please explain.
I personally do not need a forum to have a pretend fight though such fights are part of the culture of this board. I think I am bad at them. What I do have need of is a forum that I can go to that I can have a one to one with someone else that is under our control, that is on our terms, without asking 'permission' from anyone else or having to face interminable comment from outsiders. Always providing we show standard good behaviour to each other and to other board members. In other words not using it as a cover to yell abuse at people elsewhere.
I find that logical.
I am sorry I have used this quote technique to answer Cerin's points as it is not my usual way but I have used it as a politeness to Cerin as I believe that is her preferred way.
Hal, I don't think interjections would be helpful by the way. If you could hold off I would be grateful.