No you’re not and yes you did. I did actuality explicitly draw the comparison with the EU referendum a few posts further above.
I know you did Tom, but - at the risk of being frivolous - I was trying to inject a bit of levity into what seemed to be becoming a serious debate.
How’s your steel helmet doing Paul?
♂
1 Like
I could not understand what you were on about.
73,
Walt (G3NYY)
To be honest I only put that on the end as a bit of a joke, never expected the reaction I got but obviously I’ve touched a nerve 
In hindsight I could have phrased my initial post so as to make my intentions clearer so I have somewhat belatedly carried out a minor edit. I hope it spawns a productive discussion. After all the man who started it all said:
"500 was chosen because it was what it was set at before. 10,000 was chosen because that is the limit in Discourse. So those two are pretty much set in stone. The choice of 100 was more subjective, and just felt ‘right’ "
So all I’m asking is does the choice of 100 still feel ‘right’ in the light of experience, or would moving to a limit of say 150 or 200 be more appropriate. Given the foregoing I’d say that this falls entirely within the spirit of the original poll.
73 de Paul G4MD
I think there will always be endless topics that do need a much higher limit than others. There will also be topics that drag on, with a high ratio of noise to content. But the topic limit doesn’t prevent creating a new thread instance, once you find where the option is. So is it helpful to split a naturally endless topic, or not? I think that is really the question to ask.
73 Andrew VK1DA/VK2UH