Kick me, and I'll expand later.

Wouldn't it be easier to just feed you Red Bull and vodka? You're pretty expansive under those conditions.

Hmmm, I wonder if that would work as the Signature Drink?

Wouldn't it be easier to just feed you Red Bull and vodka? You're pretty expansive under those conditions.

Haven't had one in ages. It's not on heavy drink rotation at the moment. (The rotation now? Wine with Ultraviolet, but we only have one more episode to watch, and then it's all gone.)

Later = at home.

It's not on heavy drink rotation at the moment.

Ah, yes. I now associate Lent with you being cranky, but it's only popped up occasionally.

Ah, yes. I now associate Lent with you being cranky, but it's only popped up occasionally.

Eh, I gave up on Lent early this year. Too many family birthdays.

t /natter

Basically, what Jon said, with a side of anti-thread spread.

I feel it has been a negative *for the board as a whole* even if it hasn't been a negative for you, David S, or for me, P.M. Marcontell.

Despite my exceedingly unpopular generally pro-proliferation stance, I think I know what you mean, Plei. More threads = more subcommunities = less of a chance to rub up against someone often enough to feel you "know" them = more chance for friction due to misunderstood tone.

But I'm not sure there's any way to solve that short of kicking a couple hundred people off the board. Even if we just stick with the threads we have now, they move so fast that it's unlikely every poster can have significant conversation with every other poster. But it does take away from the homey feeling,and I understand why that's a problem from a certain point of view.

Am I completely misunderstanding what you meant?

Jon makes excellent points. I think I would rather see us become an all-purpose pop culture board (with plenty of natter in-thread and not), not an all-purpose all-purpose board.

Yeah, that would be my preferred direction for the board. If we continue to feed pop culture into the maw, we'll always have something to spin off conversation.

Very appealing argument there. In particular, the implication that, if we're going to start a new thread, a general TV thread would fit in better.

My head hurts. Not least because I've been in and out of meetings since 2:30, and I should have gone home 45 minutes ago.

No, you're getting my drift.

Even if we just stick with the threads we have now, they move so fast that it's unlikely every poster can have significant conversation with every other poster.

Yes, but it's more likely that, even if two people haven't had a chance to bond, they'll at least have a vague impression of each other, if that makes sense. A "hey! it's that guy!" feeling instead of a "who the heck are YOU??!?" feeling.

(Kinda mememe, so anything after sentence one is indulging me, thanks in advance)

I'm inclined to vote against a Politics thread. I really don't want to see the inevitable hard feelings that would result at some point. I know some folks thrive on and seek out conflict, but in my entertainment time, I tend to mostly be a Can't we all just get along-type. Politics generates conflict. The Buffistas are uberbright and generous and I'm sure I would learn stuff. However. USan politics tends to be extremely polarizing, by definition (sadly). I'm on other mailing lists where intensely rancorous political discussions have broken out (even when actively discouraged) among people who make a regular habit of crashing on each other's couches. My own opinion of some of those people from whom I have received and to whom I have extended hospitality, has been diminished by their conduct in said discussions, to my regret (in contrast to extensive time spent in their RL presence).

So that's my saga. I agree with the posters who have suggested that a specific Politics thread is not entirely in the general entertainment focus of the board. There are plenty of places to get politics discussions on the weeb, goodness knows, and when the topic occasionally comes up in Natter, it is usually just enough to educate me, and not send me fleeing the keyboard.

Those are my two cents, and if enough folks really want a politics thread, then they do, and so be it. My inclination is that it wouldn't be a positive step, so I'm agin it.

t YourCottonToItMayVary

A "hey! it's that guy!" feeling instead of a "who the heck are YOU??!?" feeling.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Waivering as to whether I agree or disagree and what it means if I do agree, but I understand your point.

Let me counter it by noting, that while I acknowledge the value of scattered talk - the shows I would be interested in discussing, don't have a focused thread.

Hmm. That brings up an interesting point. Is there a difference between the nature of the topics that makes one more suited to a separate thread than another? Because what Hec says here makes total sense to me too. Maybe because in discussions of things like television shows, there's a more defined time and place when discussion is (especially) relevant; certainly there's a more defined, though not static, group of interested parties*. Politics talk, though it often arises in response to a certain event or development, seems more free floating, and while the active-posting-group may also be restricted, it's a cohort likely to change from issue to issue or moment to moment. And in fact, it's the variance of that group that gives the topic a lot of vibrance.

So to me, that suggests that politcal subjects really are more suited to general discussion threads, while some other topics, like non-dominant tv shows, would be better served by having a dedicated spot.

I appear to have just talked myself out of a politics thread (where I was already leaning) and into support for a TV thread, should that come up again. Huh.

*And I meant to add, but forgot, that it is sometimes entertaining or interesting to read posts on things I don't watch or haven't seen, so it's maybe worth remembering that it's not necessarily only the known fans of a particular show who constitute "interested parties."