Although I'm generally in the pro thread-proliferation camp, I think that a separate War Thread would be a bad idea. I feel that the only way the thread could remain civil would be if it was populated with people who had almost the exact same agendas, in which case why have the thread to begin with?

I feel that the only way the thread could remain civil would be if it was populated with people who had almost the exact same agendas, in which case why have the thread to begin with?

Um, because sometimes you want to vent with people who share your agenda? If I want to take part in discussions that degenerate into shouting matches with right-wing trolls who call anyone anti-war a traitor, the net's full of them.

I think the reason some people want a War Thread here on the Phoenix is to discuss the war with people they know. Versus going to Peoplesforum or WX or any of a number of other message boards where it's just strangers.

Barring that, maybe the mailing list option would work.

I don't think the majority of Buffistas would object to occasional venting in Natter, Susan. I understand and sympathise with wanting to exercise your fears and concerns where you're known, and where you feel safe to do so. But if it's validation and support for your POV you're seeking, I don't think you're going to find unanimity here, either, even if Buffistas are more polite than people in other places.

I feel that a thread created solely for this purpose is less than healthy for the board as a whole. It will attract new posters, not all of them will share your POV, not all of them will be as polite as Buffistas, and with the expansion of topic away from social and fannish subjects, Phoenix moves more towards being a sort of New Salon. As someone posted recently, that's not what we're about, nor is it what we aspire to become.

I'll bow to the will of the majority, whatever it is. But I have to go on record as being against a war thread. An email list is another thing entire, and I could support that.

I'm not expressing myself too well--it's not so much unanimity I'm looking for as the sense of talking things over with my tribe, where they actually listen instead of shouting past each other. (Though the fact that here I tend to the majority view doesn't hurt.)

I could get behind the mailing list option, assuming we use something like Yahoo that has a web-based interface option. My mailbox is too cluttered as is.

I am so delighted to find that there are others besides me who oppose creating a war thread. I figured that it was a done deal, because these days the Yay! More Threads! Folks are in the majority. But I think it is a bad idea, for the reasons already mentioned.

However the main reason I am opposed as that I think the topic *legitimately* belongs in Natter. Natter is where we discuss what is going on in our lives. If there is a war, it will touch *all* of us. Why can't we talk about it in Natter? Who says that Natter is supposed to be the sacred space for folks who want to say (as I did last night), "I'm baking scones right now"? Why the hell would someone feel bad about interrupting something like that? I would be happy to see Natter evolve into a zone where the conversation tends more towards philosophy, love, war, art history, politics, duct tape, etc, and away from "Gee, I like chocolate, too."

Personally, I'd be fine with discussing it in Natter, but I'd been under the impression there was a consensus for keeping war, politics, etc. there to a minimum.

I thought the consensus was to keep the heat down when discussing them. We had a couple conversations that went into the red zone, but that hasn't been happening of late.

I think one problem is that even when the people having the conversation are perfectly friendly towards each other, there are other people around who then feel uncomfortable if they don't take the majority (around here) view.

Frankly, I'd like to keep war/political dicsussion out of Natter. At least, lengthy protracted discussions. FWIW.