No, I am not making any such assumption. All I said is that the topic is one on which there is not, and there has not been, any reasonable dergree of consensus. We have debated this in the past. The debate was lengthy, acrimonious and inconclusive. Randy, for whatever reason, took a particular decision in one direction.
Now, given the history of debate on the issue of omni-post counting, what was the more than likely coinsequence of putting forward a motion inviting Randy to reconsider his position? Was it likely to generate a high degree of consensus, peace and harmony on FT, or rather a heated and inconclusive debate? And are those TB members who put forward that proposal so naive as to believe that a topic which proved inconclusive and divisive in the past would all of the suddent become entirely uncontroversial and capable of generating a high degree of consensus even though there does not seem to have been any fundamental change that would suggest that FTers view would be fundamentally different this time round?
And was, moreover, the context of requiring Randy to reconsider a decision which he has recently made or re-made even more likely to provoke controversy?