Or it could mean you were just wrong.

Okay, wow.

And to think my primary participation in this discussion was to comment about differences in perception, and now I'm getting the big smackdown for it?

Whatev.

and the second of which is the one Amych mentioned about fragmented discussion and further divisions in the community. Which is a lot hard to quantify.

And this one I get really. It was how I felt about the Music thread. I was assured that it wouldn't mean music would only be discussed in that thread, just that people wanted a place to really get down to discussing music. I want a place to really get into discussing a particular book, any book, really. I'll read Spider Robinson if you guys tell me to. Literary hasn't been that place. I suppose it could be, but can we agree that it would change what the thread has been?

I'm probably not reading it correctly, though, so I'll ask for clarification: do you mean that in-depth discussion about books is not happening, and that's what you want to change? (My brain parsed it as "in-depth discussion about books is not happening in Lit, and that's what I want to change.")

My brain intended it as "there is not lenghty discussion of one book at a time, (shorthand, book club), and that's what I want to change by creating a Book Club Thread." My point was, yeah, we could do it in Lit. We could also do it in a separate thread. Kat's question was, would the new thread meet a need that's not being met (not saying it couldnt' be met in a current thread, just that, right now? Not.). For me, the anwer is yes, the new thread would meet that need that is not currently being met (not that it's the only way but it is one way. As it happens, my preferred way). What? You couldn't get all that from what I wrote?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Our situation as a community, and as a board, has changed drastically from the days when the default answer to any interest was to create a thread.

I do, from time to time, support the creation of new threads. Usually if there isn't a space that fits the need exant. But I've been around literary since WX, and believe that not only can it accommodate such discussion, it would be a logical outgrowth of the thread, which has in its time supported extended discussion on the nuances of Trollope.

And, to be fair, I couldn't get all that from "Board not called Bookistas." I didn't get why that would be an argument against a book club thread when the board, called Buffistas, does accommodate so many other interests with individual threads. ETA: Eh, you know what? In re-reading, you actually did explain a bit about what you meant in the next line. I knee-jerked some on that one, I admit.

I think the point that was getting made was that the general climate in Literary was not hospitable to having in-depth discussions of literary texts.

I think there's some confusion about what different people mean by "in-depth discussion." (Or, at least, I'm confused.) To me, it means people talking for awhile about the same book, and having some sort of sustained discussion going beyond "I like it," "Me too!" "I don't." So, discussing characters, plot, whether it would have been better with a different ending, whatever. Are you using it to mean something more specific?

No Hil, that's what I meant.

ETA- actually perhaps a little deeper than characters and plot. Interpretations, meanings (in all forms) is more what I was going for.

I think I use "I like it" "Me too" as shorthand for the surface discussions that go on in there mostly.

Okay, wow.

It seems I stated it too harshly, but no -- sometimes one is just wrong. And that one certainly includes myself -- I've been wrong right here in the last hour.

The fact that you mistakenly thought most threads didn't get created means ... it means you mistakenly thought most threads didn't get created. That's ALL. It does not speak to the strength or prevalence of an anti-proliferation group.

It just means you were mistaken.

And to think my primary participation in this discussion was to comment about differences in perception, and now I'm getting the big smackdown for it?

No, you claimed that more threads had been prevented by anti-proliferationista arguments than had actually happened. The numbers don't support you, therefore, your number-based assertion was wrong.

How is that a smackdown?

I should probably know this - how long do we discuss?

how long do we discuss?

Until the propser's head explodes.

Or seven days.

I thought it was four. And then voting for three.

Or is it talking for three and voting for four?

Or maybe it's easier to just go with the head exploding thing.