I don't think anyone is saying that there needs to be over 100 contributors. But apparently new people were inquiring, and apparently some spots were forgotten about. Why was it so wrong for CM to poll the "correspondents" to find out who truly wanted to keep their spots? To each one reading this who took the polling personally, what was so inconceivable about the idea that ANOTHER one of the silent members might have been willing to make space? No one said it had to be "you" to any one of you in particular.
So what's the deal? Why the indignation over the suggestion that you comment without reserving spots?
And the real meat of the thirsty:
Q: If you don't want to contribute, why do you want so badly to have a spot?
I have some suspicions that never would have crossed my mind in previous weeks, but after various security related discussions cropped up, here they are:
Some of you don't want to participate at all, but you're real people. You want to be "contributors" so that you can read drafts and look for what people edit between draft and post so you can try to identify your co-workers, either to satisfy personal curiosities, or to out them to superiors.
Some of you want to participate, but you're not "real people", you're trolls and half of the silent spots are being taken by the same one. This way you can have "IP evidence" that there aren't as many members as are reported. I have no idea what motivates that, but clearly saying "One guy writes the whole thing." gets someone off because that notion is proposed with some regularity.