Calling me unfair or spiteful does not feel like respect.

Telling me my direct personal experience of the board is not valid (which is what you are, in fact, saying when you "just plain disagree with it") does not feel like respect either.

It's like you saying you just plain disagree with me when I say the sky is blue. How am I supposed to work with that? How am I not supposed to take that personally?

This isn't an appropriate analogy. It's more like you saying that cilantro tastes awesome. I can just plain disagree with you on that one, can't I? You have an experience, and I have an experience, and I am totally within my rights to say, "You may think that's so universally, but that's not how it is for me."

In fact, we've had that discussion a bunch of times! And people have only ever told each other "Your taste buds are meanies" in jest.

How then are we ever to convince her or you or anybody that the fragmented state already exists if our experience of the board is dismissed out of hand?

Er, right back atcha. Nobody is about to say "Oh, sorry, I just realized that my board experience is wrongheaded and invalid because it differs from yours. My bad!" so we may as well all stop waiting for it.

Do I have to name names of people who make me feel like slinking off into a dark corner whenever they show up before you'll believe me that there are already fragmented subcultures to the board?

I am fragmented from others on this board. Therefore a fragmented state already exists.

As best I can understand, you are saying "No, the board is not fragmented." I don't understand, Jess.

Telling me my direct personal experience of the board is not valid (which is what you are, in fact, saying when you "just plain disagree with it") does not feel like respect either.

Not Nutty, but I don't get this is what she's saying at all. She's saying she disagrees because that's not her experience of the board. She's *not* saying your experience isn't valid, she's simply saying it isn't hers.

Something's breaking down here, and I don't get it. I tell my *husband* all the time that I don't agree with him, and it does *not* mean I don't love him or value him, it just means that there are some points we're never going to agree on.

Sean, something just occurred to me:

However, when those of us who want these threads mention that *not* having them is destructive to board culture for us, those opposed tell us we're being emotional, or that we're not engaging fairly, or that they just plain disagree with us. [Bolding Steph's, not Sean's]

When you feel that lack of narrow-topic threads is destructive to board culture, and others disagree, do you think that they're (1) disagreeing with the general premise that lack of narrow-topic threads is destructive, or (2) telling you that your perception of damage to the board culture couldn't possibly be true?

Do you see my distinction? Are you frustrated because others don't share your experience, or do you feel like your own experience is being invalidated?

Because if it's #1, then unfortunately, people are always going to disagree. Narrow-topic threads build community for some, and bucket threads build community for others.

If it's #2, well, my read of this discussion is honestly that no one is trying to say "Sean, you're crazy; there is NO WAY that you could be experiencing a breakdown of community because we lack narrow-topic threads."

I think other people are saying, "Sean, I haven't experienced what you have, and because of my personal preferences, I likely never will," but I don't think anyone is trying to say that you haven't experienced what you actually have.

t edit And while I was composing this long-winded, Dr. Phil-esque post, others have swooped in and already made my point for me. Dang!

Steph, it is, in fact, #2.

I have no problem with people just disagreeing with me.

But this:

If it's #2, well, my read of this discussion is honestly that no one is trying to say "Sean, you're crazy; there is NO WAY that you could be experiencing a breakdown of community because we lack narrow-topic threads."

Is exactly what is going on here, from where I'm sitting. And I'm desperately trying to get you guys to understand that. Because no matter how many times anybody says "Sean, that's not what we're actually doing," that's still exactly what is going on here, from my perspective.

on the phone and standing on the bus, but what I am saying is not that fragmentaion isn't there, but that my experience has been that narrow topic threads FOR ME are less cure than cause.

before you'll believe me that there are already fragmented subcultures to the board?

When have I ever denied this?

My position is there isn't a clean break from subcultures/no subcultures. There's a lot of gray area, and I'd like to keep us as un-fragmented as possible for as long as we can because that is how we will best preserve what I view as our core Buffista community culture. Hence the slippery slope arguments and the concerns for precedent-setting.

I feel like you're saying "Well we already have some subcultures so your argument is a moot point therefore gimme my thread." And I don't think it's that clear-cut.

Steph, it is, in fact, #2.

Dang! Again.

I swear to you, from my reading of this thread over the past few days (and I've read every post [except for the ones where you, ND, and billytea tangented off into gaming]), I don't think that anyone is doing that. I really don't.

I swear to you, from my reading of this thread over the past few days (and I've read every post [except for the ones where you, ND, and billytea tangented off into gaming]), I don't think that anyone is doing that. I really don't.

Me neither, FWIW. Except I did read the gaming posts.