Michael, we (the community here & you) have agreed to disagree.

You have been suspended, under any username you try to register.

Please leave. NOW.

I have the same question as ita.

Can I just suggest that you'll never catch up in Natter?

My bad - I didn't mean to imply that introducing new threads would have any impact upon the size of Natter. Just that I might stand a chance of following and participating in a movie-centric conversation in a Movie thread, whereas the chances of me spotting such a convesation in Natter, let alone participating, are tiny. And I'm quite fond of movies, so that would be cool. (About Music I'm stunningly ignorant, and would probably not participate much.)

Maybe we need to change the slug to indicate that isn't for Literature.

Okay, a violent, violent NO from Camp Fay. Literature is books. It's writing. It's not "Literary Fiction", which is a specific genre and a class-issue and all kinds of shit like that. It's books. Literature=books. Not "Posh" books, or "Worthy" books or any of that shit. Books.

Ah. I appear to have another hair trigger. Stepping carefully off the soap box. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re: ita's point - damn. Okay, I see where she's coming from. I don't want to make anyone's experience of the boards less positive.

Bugger.

Fay is me.

She contains multitudes, then, 'cause she's me, too.

I have no problems skipping and skimming

Me neither. What I do find is that I then miss all the good conversations, so I raise a topic and people say "oh, we talked about that before" and I didn't know. If I knew that talk about a movie was to be found in the movie thread, then I could go there and read all of that, before raising my topic. Which would result in feeling stupid less often. (Well, it might. It might just result in posting in the wrong thread more often, but I can hope.)

I'm having an identity crisis, because now Am Chau is me.

I think there's always going to be movie and music talk in Natter, because people do natter about what's going on in their lives. But at least if we natter-deprived, we few, we band of--oh, sorry. If we have slower-paced dedicated threads, we at least do have access to conversation and opinion and consensus.

Plowing through the Natter thread is something I miss, but I really don't have time for, even skimming, which is very unrewarding. Movies and Music will have some natter, yes, inevitably. But less than full-on Natter.

Also is there no book talk at all in Natter?

Most book talk in Natter goes something like this:

Person 1: "I just read Blankety Blank and I loved it. But I suppose it's already been discussed in Literary."

Person 2: "Oh, several posters read it and wanted to talk about it."

Person 1: "Really? I'll go over and post then."

Also is there no book talk at all in Natter?

I think this is the point here. Take TTT, for example - the movie has its own thread, and everybody who gets there knows that this is what they're going to find there. Does it mean there are no TTT discussions in Natter, or even other threads? I don't think so. If I understand Hec correctly, what he talked about was adding another place, to be devoted specifically to music, but it does not prevent music from being discussed in Natter, because, by nature, everything will be discussed in Natter (including ME shows, on occasion). I think that the addition of theme-specific threads will lessen the posting abot that theme in Natter, but not diminish it, far from it, even. I have no idea if I'm right, of course.

[Edited because I don't know what a ni is]

"Michael. Dude. However *at all* polite, or clever, or nice you may be now, we don't want to hear it."

Never thought you did. But since I haven't been deactivated yet, I figured I was being given the opportunity to defend myself by some Stompey in charge.

In any case, you are right. Enough talk. I said what I wished to, and I appreciate that whomever is watching gave me the chance to say it under this different name. I really will go now, as I do have to get back to work.

Thanks to those that emailed me privately to say they supported me. T'weren't many, but some is better than none. I look forward to discussing with you in the future through emails.

Back to the gab. It was fun while it lasted. Over and out.

We seem to have 31 active threads at the moment. I really don't have a problem with movie and music threads in theory as I just subscribe and unsub as time allows. In the order they appear on the home page this is how I categorize the threads. It is getting a little confusing for me and I have to think it is worse for anyone new. Maybe some kind of organization? (What are the chances the format will be good first try?)

General - Natter
Spike's Bitches 2: These Bitches Got Some Funding
Natter 6: We're wearing the cheese RIGHT NOW!!
All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American

Specific Natter
LotR - The Two Towers: "Dude, Where's my Precious?"
Buffistechnology
Sang Sacre 1: It's a Blood, Blood, Blood, Blood World
Goodbye and Good Riddance 2002: A Very Buffista Holiday Thread
Buffista Corp
F2F Planning

Show threads
Buffy 2: Hey, I've Died Twice
Firefly 2: You Can't Take the Sky From Me.
Atlantic Canadian Monday Madness
Farscape 1: Fetch the Comfy Chair
The Jossverse in Other Media
Buffy and Angel SPOILERS
The Quotable Firefly: Oh, my God, I am a hack...
Due South: Mountie Fetishists Anon!
The Quotable Buffy: She said that? When?
Angel 1: SpongeVamp Leatherpants
Smallville 1: Clex!
Spoilage Lite: Angel
Spoilage Lite: Buffy
Previously 1: The Who Whating How With Huh?
The Quotable Angel: Can I say it? I wanna say it.
Firefly Spoilers

Fiction and Literary
Literary Buffistas: Don't Speak Latin in Front of the Books
Fan Fiction: Writers, Readers, and Enablers
Bitchy Fic: It Could Be Plot Bunnies
The Great Write Way
PPO
Spike's Bitches Anthology Project

Can the threads be put in some better order on the front page?

James at 15 was an old TV show. People were referring to a plotline on said show. I fail to see why it's being brought up here.

Question: What is James at 15? What does it have to do with real people?

It was a very bad, very earnest tv show in the 70s. It has nothing to do with real people, given that it was, you know, a fictional tv show.

I'm not even going to ask what James at 15 is.* Whatever.

Person 1: "I just read Blankety Blank and I loved it. But I suppose it's already been discussed in Literary."

Man, I'm laughing like a loon. Blankety Blank is one of the cheesiest of kitsch gameshows in the UK. Heh. The prospect of a book version being discussed earnestly is glorious.

eta *Ah. I don't have to, because y'all have told me. Fair enough.