I’m having a hard time parsing this, can you restate? The part after “when” is reading awkwardly to me.
Well, many people around here would beg to differ. 
But are you really of the mind that two people of intelligence cannot disagree on something? That in itself is a problematic mindset, wouldn’t you say? There are pros and cons to everything, what I propose included. I see cons to it. Can you not see ANY upside to it?
Maybe not. Heck, probably not. Doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.
I see the upside you’re talking about. I guess I don’t think that an open message board like this one is an appropriate venue for such a forum.
Fair enough. But I don’t see that having one forum negates or even disrupts the board the way you now enjoy it. Except that, there would be a little more work to open any new forum.
In this thread from a couple of months ago, Marley23 appeared to OK the idea of a one-on-one debate. So how does this new idea differ in such a way that it’s being discouraged?
I guess members are always free to politely request that only certain other members should post to a thread (a Christian wishing to hear the views of other Christians on some matter perhaps). I’m not sure whether the mods would add teeth to the request though. Would it perhaps be jerkish for an atheist to post in such a thread anyway and give his view?
Didn’t Liberal have a series of such threads going recently in GD? I don’t know how successful it was or whether compliance was in any way enforced by the mods.
With ~2.5 million posts, MPSIMS is our most popular forum.
To a certain extent, I am willing to restrict comments in a thread to a somewhat narrower topic than we typically enforce so that a discussion of a specific religious doctrine or speculative issue in science, philosophy, politics, or other discipline can be discussed without being overwhelmed by naysayers trying to drown the discussion.
I have not the time or energy to sit on a thread 24/7 to ensure that a limited number of participants be allowed to post in it. Anyone who wishes a one-on-one, (or three-on-three, etc.), debate is free to engage in it now, provided the participants are willing to ignore all the other posts in the thread and address only each other.
I do not object to there being such a forum, but we will need more Mods to handle it.
You’d have to ask the participants if Liberal’s threads were “successful.”
Ah, the glorious irony in this is that I did post this thread to the pit, knowing my opinions of the mods and their minions would play in eventually, but it was moved with no input from me and I was chastised for not putting it here in the first place.
You knew you were gonna post a slur against another poster here, so you started this out in the Pit? Is that your final answer?
Remove the sequential thread games and the MMPs and I would wager good money that would no longer be the case.
Yes.
You know what the real irony* is? If it had stayed in the pit, I would have never responded, since I mostly choose to not participate in that forum** and then the statement would have not been made at all (at least not directed at my post).
To bring this back to topic a bit though, my first “*” reminds me…a category that might be beneficial, that doesn’t already exist would be one specifically for the grammar questions/peeves/nit-picks/rants (and other language usage questions and topics). I realize that other categories work for most of them, but in the past day or two I have noticed enough of these types of threads (or thread drift) to think it would be well used. And those who find grammar annoyances, well…annoying…could easily avoid them.
*I’m actually not positive that “irony” is the right word here, but I am sticking with it. 
**The only exception of which I am aware was a grammar peeve thread that was started in the pit then moved to MPSIMS.
I am sure that the mods would have been defensive and hostile, without any serious regard for the question, and that some posters would have been by to talk about how perfect this place is as it is, and that one of them would have mounted a ridiculous, disingenuous argument about something silly like the true meaning of “mundane,” and I am even more certain that in any thread, anywhere on the Internet, somebody would have made such a ridiculous argument and then insisted it was my job to prove it.
Pulease…first can we please drop the notion that I was making any kind of argument about the word “mundane”, much less asking you to prove anything at all? I gave you a dictionary definition, but never, nowhere, not once did I say anything other than “here is the dictionary definition” I did not say it was commonly used in any manner at all, nor did I say it could never be. I made no argument one way or another, so your asking me for cites to support the argument that you pulled out of the air was beyond ridiculous. Words have definitions, words are not always used solely for the one definition with which we (general) are familiar…THAT was my only point as to the word.
And quite frankly, the only defensiveness or hostility I have seen in this thread is from you.
You’re kidding, right?
Of course I am not kidding. I think a grammar/language forum would be very useful and a lot of fun.
Can we now debate the finer points of what “is” is?
I don’t like the idea of making a ‘in the news’ category, simply because that’s not how the classification system works here. The classifications here are based on tone, with the subject being a secondary consideration:
GQ: Ultra polite, and factual only.
GD: Polite, factual (in theory anyway)
ATMB: Outwardly polite, but all members involved would like nothing more than to shake the person on the other end while screaming SHUT UP SHUT UP.
MPSIMS: Conversational.
GR: Within the context of a game.
IMHO: Opinion based. Also snarky.
CS: Similar to IMHO, but with more conflict. Also art-based, primarily.
BBQ: Very snarky, also very opinionated and sharp.
This way, something that would cover a lot of topics: (I.E. the recent news covered a famous atheist defacing The Last Supper and is now on the run from declawed policemen on UHC) doesn’t have to be carefully considered for forum placement. If the OP wants to discuss the new look of The Last Supper, it goes in Cafe Society. If the OP wants to decry the use of declawed policemen on UHC, it goes in the BBQ Pit. If the OP wants to debate what this says about atheists, it goes in GD.
Of course, this causes other classification problems, but overall I think it’s a nice, unique-ish system, and I don’t see the benefit of throwing it out.
The definitions also have definitions, as Derrida pointed out.
Runon sentence. Also, I was hoping your advocacy would be more, well, modest and less bruised. More constructively, have you considered testing your idea out at one of the more experimental satellite boards?
I’ve seen it twice. Once is here, where the OP doesn’t want to lament loss of life in a forum with the words Mundane and Pointless in it. The other was when someone didn’t want to post an obit for a war hero in MPSIMS for similar reasons.
I suppose we could call the forum Mundane or Pointless Stuff I Must Share, emphasizing that of course we mean “of or pertaining to the world, universe, or earth,” and not “ordinary; banal” for those posters, few but vocal, who don’t appreciate the virtue of modesty or self-effacement. Slightly more seriously, methinks it would be unfortunate to rename the forum “Miscellaneous Personal Stuff I Must Share”, though I suppose that might be more accurate.
h/t: Left Hand of Dorkness