If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

Book ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'


Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?  

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych


Fred Pete - May 26, 2004 4:40:48 am PDT #898 of 10001
Ann, that's a ferret.

This does only occur once S5 finishes airing overseas, right?

Sorry, I should have made that clear -- yes, that's correct.


Topic!Cindy - May 26, 2004 5:06:49 am PDT #899 of 10001
What is even happening?

What was your chunk approach, Cindy? It seemed to already have assumptions in it, but I could be remembering it all wrong. And obviously we are not sharing axioms at the moment.

I just wanted to see if we needed to fill the TV gap, or not (with "not" being just as viable option as filling it). It looked (when Lightbulb was open for Betsy's proposal) as if people were going to propose either a general TV thread, or a few sort of general TV threads, separated into categories.

Personally, I think that it's a mistake to do that right now, mostly because the time zones will cause spoiler problems (that could probably be addressed, but would take a complicated work-around). Another reason I think that's a mistake is that I think part of what makes us us, is that the TV that historically has caused us to lose objectivity, spend too many hours analyzing, and post passionately, is good, innovative, well-crafted TV, with major arcs and lots of layers.

I thought that instead of living through people proposing and getting shot down ad nauseam, we should have a conversation about what kinds of shows we watch--shows which make us want to post about them (posts with substance, that is--above and beyond the little tv comments we make in Natter). That's all. Since Liese has sounded the trumpet of calm, I'm no longer as concerned that we will all go proposal happy.

I have no "I'd like a thread for this show" list, myself. I just didn't want us going all proposal-crazy, with no clear idea of what sort of shows we can bullshit-agree fit us, as a community. My assumptions were that either we'd find we didn't need anything right now, or that someone would come up with an idea we would think was worth a shot. I didn't think we needed to address the who-are-we question writ large, because I think we already know that, and the convo always ends with arguments of people saying the same thing, in different ways (imo). Our only major, recent change is that now we have no new episodes of shows that were part of our original bond. So the TV chunk-of-us, is all I wanted to look at.


§ ita § - May 26, 2004 5:10:42 am PDT #900 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Your assumption that what shows we watch or would post about is relevant is the one I don't share.

I think there's a discussion that'd need to happen before that. And once that discussion has happened, you're more than halfway to proposal-land anyway.


Topic!Cindy - May 26, 2004 5:35:07 am PDT #901 of 10001
What is even happening?

Your assumption that what shows we watch or would post about is relevant is the one I don't share.

Does your relevant = new thread? Mine does not. I'm not assuming our findings will prove relevant in any way, except let us figure out if our TV gap is big, or little. I figured the most likely outcome was us deciding we didn't need/want any new thread right now.

I think there's a discussion that'd need to happen before that.

What would it be?

eta...

Again, I don't think the convo is so necessary, now. Whatever this was, also seemed to dampen the (what felt like to me) ardor for a new, general thread.


§ ita § - May 26, 2004 6:19:21 am PDT #902 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Does your relevant = new thread? Mine does not.

Mine neither.

Why are we discussing what TV shows we'd post about? Why not what arts and crafts? Martial arts? Fashion? Makeup?

There seems to be an underlying assumption that what TV shows we'd post about matters in some way.


Nutty - May 26, 2004 7:40:00 am PDT #903 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

Now my brain hurts. I was all set to agree with Brenda on the linky linky thing, but I also understand when other people say you can't force the linky linky thing on people. Much as I would like to.

Interrelationships good! Insularity bad!

Well, personally I could make use of a general TV thread, because I watch a lot of TV and sometimes have trouble combing through Natter in search of the topical discussion. I can't think of any other threads I am needing, however. I can live with keepin' on keepin' on, until such time as something needs to happen, and I can live with the idea that the something that needs to happen is not yet upon us.

But be vigilant, people! We'll only continue to exist as long as enough of us persist in the shared fiction. If your attention lapses, suddenly we might all be stranded in Mongolia or something.


Deena - May 26, 2004 7:53:13 am PDT #904 of 10001
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara

At least we'd be together.


Nutty - May 26, 2004 8:02:24 am PDT #905 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

Yeah, in MONGOLIA!!

(No offense to Mongolians. I have a yurt-avoidance issue.)


DXMachina - May 26, 2004 8:11:19 am PDT #906 of 10001
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.

Check, no yurts for Nutty.

Mongolia seems like it might be fun for a short while. They have horses. Okay, all I actually know about Mongolia is what I saw in PBS special starring Julia Roberts.


Topic!Cindy - May 26, 2004 8:16:17 am PDT #907 of 10001
What is even happening?

Why are we discussing what TV shows we'd post about? Why not what arts and crafts? Martial arts? Fashion? Makeup?

(I'm tempted to ask if you're taking the piss here, but am assuming you're asking in earnest, and will answer in kind.)

Why?--because originally, we found each other thanks to a TV show, and though there are some who came for the shows/stayed for the Natter (and a subset of those stayed for the natter even after the shows lost them), that's not true for everyone. We have had people state they don't only come for the natter, or stayed as much for the topic as for the natter. Now our original reason for finding each other has been off the air for a year. Tim & Joss's other shows went down in blazes of glory/obscurity, and Angel just ended a week ago today. We've never been here, before. There was always a new clear-to-us potential obsession on the horizon. I am not implying TV show-based analysis was the only, or most important reason that we are us, but it was certainly played a part.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that what TV shows we'd post about matters in some way.

No, there wasn't an underlying assumption. There was an overt (I thought) desire was to find out if it mattered at all, and if so, how much, and again, the reason was, because we've never before been in this position.

If you go back to the early bits of the conversation, Burrell mentioned [wild paraphrase] that although she likes a certain show, and likes the snarky kind of posting it inspires, it would never be enough to sustain a thread. That (and its converse, which I never saw about any show) is what I was wondering about: is there anything out there now, that we want (in a needy way) to talk about? It seemed more sensible to me to get a feel for whether or not the desire was real or assumed, before we went and proposed threads.