Since I was probably the most egregious in my comments, I'd like to apologize.

It's not necessary, but I appreciate the monkey-grooming. ;)

I'm sorry to have restarted the argument, or seemed like I was doing that; let me try to boil this down to what's applicable to the current argument. Part of the discussion seems to be constructed as "Literary serves a purpose the Book Club would disrupt," and I wanted to put in my two cents as a Literary participant who doesn't think the Book Club would be disruptive, or antithetical to the purposes of the thread.

A separate issue is, I think, the idea that "Literary would disrupt the proposed Book Club," which I think is possible but not as certain as many posters do.

A separate issue is, I think, the idea that "Literary would disrupt the proposed Book Club," which I think is possible but not as certain as many posters do.

I'm more in this boat - It'd be like trying to conduct a seminar in the middle of a cocktail party.

In the f2f book club I'm in, we will frequently get side-tracked to different topics. It's not quite a cocktail party atmosphere, but there's usually wine and clever people who like to talk (usually about the book, but not always). Theme X in the book reminds such and so about an event in her life, that event reminds so and such of something that happened to her. We've all known one another for years now (mostly) so it's easy to wander off into various digressions. However, it's also easy for interested parties to say, "Such and so digression reminds me of plot point Y in the novel," thus bringing things back on track.

I don't know if this would be effective in an online forum or not.

Kristen, see my post here.

Wolfram, I saw your post this morning and I appreciated the clarification. My post was in response to Cindy's comment, which read to me as her feeling this proposed thread was being held to a different standard to previous proposed threads.

I expect there will be digressions and tangents in the book club thread. I just don't think we'd be able to maintain a relatively tight focus in Literary.

It's not necessary, but I appreciate the monkey-grooming. ;)

One more (at least) then. Betsy, I am sorry that in my original posts I cited Heyer, Crusie, Sayer. Those stuck in my mind not simply because discussion had returned to them frequently, but because their virtues had been so well articulated in the thread. After the fact, I realized those were all writers which you had particularly championed, and you could certainly read my comments as a direct insult on your taste. I did not intend that.

It was because you had so effectively made the case for those writers that they were on my mind, and had generated enthusiastic readers in the thread. Anyway, I feel bad about it and did not intend any slight to you.

But I'm not sorry I started the discussion or what I said. I think it produced a very useful discussion, even though there was definitely some bruising.

I hope it was useful to others, because, like Hayden, I'm still really bruised and bitter from it.

Wolfram, I never said that was your primary objection, but that it was my understanding of the majority of dissenters here. I may well have misunderstood. I am always willing to admit when I am wrong.

Kim, I was actually speaking for the non-dissenters, but I'm sorry for coming down so hard on your post. I may have been the one who was getting touchy and defensive.

Wolfram, I saw your post this morning and I appreciated the clarification. My post was in response to Cindy's comment, which read to me as her feeling this proposed thread was being held to a different standard to previous proposed threads.

My mistake. Thanks.

It's all good Wolfram. My nerves are getting frayed just reading the posts. I just don't want to fray anyone else's.

Thanks for that, Hec; we're good.

Cindy, is your point that while anti-proliferation remains a valid concern for the board, this thread will not push us over the edge?

Not really, msbelle. I don't have any kind of technical knowledge. I could never make that judgment. I have not read the tech posts as indicating that we're near the edge right now, at all.

My points are:

1) Anti-proliferation is a concern for a couple of kinds of reasons: resource use; and culture.

2) If it is an urgent resource-use concern--if despite spending $100/month--we're in such dire straits that we have to fight every new thread proposal on resource grounds, then we need to look at things from a broader perspective than the thread proposal du jour. If the FF film, or the animated series, or a big announcement could push us over the edge as things stand now, we're in trouble. If that's true then we'll need a clean up, and/or we'll need ground rules for new threads, OR we need to agree that what we have is all we're getting, and no more proposals, ever.

3) If it is more of a future resource concern (for when we leave our expensive, dedicated server), then again, I think we need to look from a broader perspective, than just fighting each thread proposal as it comes up. Rather than leave whoever is feeling anti-proliferationist at the time, to fight every proposal as it comes up, why not address these concerns in a more general way?

4) Where the a-p feeling is founded on a cultural perspective (and that is just as important as resources--we like our community), I also think it's better to discuss the philosophy from a broader perspective, instead of fighting this battle every time a new thread is proposed. Build things into the process (examples: an edict declaring that the "but we're a subcommunity" argument will not save new threads, as of whatever date; vote of confidence at 6 mos; periodic votes of confidence for all threads--whatever).

Cause Yeah, I agree, but adding another small layer of disussion at the base just makes the gap between where we are now (operating ok, while the MySQL issues still exist) and crashboom (which will happen when those things we can't control - movie opening, VIPs, links...) isn't helpful either.

As I've understood all the tech stuff (my understanding is shallow as you'll see, and may well be wrong):

• MySQL issues still exist, but while we're on this dedicated server at iStrata, crashboom isn't the issue it was at HostRockit and FanGeek, because we have whatchamacallit over the whozits (basically we can close the connections that should close on their own, were it not for the bug).

• We're staying on this server (provided we don't run out of $--which could happen--at $1200 a year) until either we switch off of MySQL to PostgreSQL, or the MySQL bug is fixed

If we're not moving 'til we're off of the buggy MySQL, and if the buggy MySQL is the real reason for crashboom, then I am either missing something, or just plain don't understand the a-p argument from a resource-use perspective. From the discussion here, I'm thinking that my understanding is not only shallow, but may well be wrong, too.

ita? Anyone?

Wolfram, I saw your post this morning and I appreciated the clarification. My post was in response to Cindy's comment, which read to me as her feeling this proposed thread was being held to a different standard to previous proposed threads.

I respect that you don't see it that way, but I feel it was, Kristen. Every thread has to define its purpose. Minearverse had to do that, and so did this thread. That's not the issue. There were posts here wanting an explanation not of the typical things--like what's it about (it's going to be an in depth discussion of one book at a time, and we knew this from the proposal); or the spoiler rules, but how the discussion itself would be structured.

Should thread topic be defined up front? Yes. And it was. Should spoilers be addressed? Yes. Should people right now have to commit to a discussion outline (X days on any book, regardless of topic and size; who is picking what book, and how will they be picked) before they've had the chance to try it out? In my opinion, they should not. Regardless, Wolfram answered the structure question as best he could, so the point is moot, anyhow.