New BookTalk Format: A discussion

Chris OConnor

Misterpessimistic, aka Nick, has made the suggestion that we read one book every three months, as opposed to our current one book every two months.

Benefits...

less financial cost to members
more time to order, read and discuss books
less pressure as a result of more time
more time for me to get authors as guests
less pressure on me to get authors as guests
less admin responsibilities
easier to remember - "1 book per quarter"

Comments?

Chris

Mr. Pessimistic

I had suggested this to Chris because I simply have not had 1) Time and 2) money to buy books lately. My two jobs are killing me and the holidays and high heating oil prices, amongst other things, are sapping my $$ away.

I thought others may have this crunch feeling too, with work/school and just life getting in the way to digest and spit up a book every two months, over and above any other work, life, reading we want to do.

Please comment people. We desire your input on this.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

jerkinabottle

What makes you so special that Chris is going to change a booktalk rule especially for YOU. LOL. I'm just joking with you. Hehe. Actually I like 3 months better because I'm a slow reader.

Mr. Pessimistic

I am a slow reader too, YA JERK! jk

You dont know who I am? I am very special. All shall bend at the waist to me! MWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor

I think more people will get involved if there is less pressure.

More time for ordering, receiving, reading and discussing = Less Pressure

Mr. Pessimistic

That was my thought too. Wish more would offer an OPINION!!!!

lol

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Tiarella

Heh. "Solid poster," eh? It's not the reading alone, it's the apparent need to do independant research on the topic. I do not have the time for that! And, heck - I'm just plain not willing.

I've read some of the selections, but never every word of any of the books. For the first one, I got fed up because it was supposed to be science-based, but the author neglected to offer evidence for his assertions. I seemed to be the only one disturbed by this. Oddly enough, every selection I read after that, except for Carl Sagan's, suffered to some degree from the same problem. What a turn-off!

The folks who post on any particular book generally appear to be pretty knowledgeable about the field. That's not been the case for me, so I can't contribute the kind of post that BookTalk members seem to value most. So - I figure it's better to leave the book discussions to the experts amongst us.

Consequently, switching the number of books per year from 6 to 4 won't make much difference for me.

Chris OConnor

It sounds like going with one book every three months is a good idea. Now I have another question. How do you all feel about us creating a forum called MovieTalk for discussing movies?

We could suggest, nominate and then vote on movies in the same fashion as we do our books. There could be some guidelines...

1. We only watch and discuss movies that are either educational, classics, or of the freethinker variety.

If we do every style of movie we might attract the wrong people to this community, and in the long run destroy the intellectual atmosphere. What do you guys think? Or should we not worry about this? Anyone that is causing problems can be warned and then banned. I'm just worried about attracting kids, spammers and nutcases. Should we have a rule about the types of movies we watch?

2. We do one movie every "X," whether it be every three months, or even one movie per month.

I tend to think we could do one movie every month, as movies are a much cheaper investment, in regards to money to rent them and time spent watching them. The MovieTalk forum would really be a casual forum as a sidenote to our book discussions. When we are watching a movie that sounds good to you...watch it. When the selection doesn't interest you...skip it. No big deal. There would be no pressure and we wouldn't be having chats with the movie stars.

3. One chat session for each movie.

Many people will approach these movies very casually, and might appreciate having a casual movie discussion chat as opposed to only being able to discuss the movie in the MovieTalk forum. Typing posts can be cumbersome and intimidating to some people, so having a casual chat where transcripts are NOT recorded is a nice alternative for these individuals. Perhaps we have the MovieTalk chat the 3rd Saturday of every month at 3:00pm eastern? Or something. (This would be if we did one movie per month)

Notes:

We would have a forum for MovieTalk, but I would not create a Movie page. At least not in the beginning. If this catches on we could add a movie page later. I'm sure everyone has seen the Books page on our site.

There would be a permanent link on the Home page to the MovieTalk forum. This way visitors would be made aware of this aspect of the BookTalk community.

Having forums with low post counts makes any community look bad, so we would have one forum for all movie discussions. We would not create a new forum for each new movie, as we do with our books.

With one movie every month, and with every movie in one forum entitled "MovieTalk," this forum should rapidly get quite a few posts.

Members would be welcome to create their own threads about any movie they want to discuss. They can create polls too. Maybe they want to rent a movie that doesn't make it onto a poll, but they want some company. There is no reason a new thread can't be created enticing other members to rent and watch the movie, and then have a discussion.

I think this forum would grow quickly. But I don't want the new forum to add too much to my administrative duties. There is a great deal of behind the scenes stuff I have to do, so anything overly complex will not be possible right now.

I am even open to the idea of having this forum completely unstructered. This might make my life MUCH easier. If we have an unstructered forum then ANY BookTalk member could throw a poll up and try to get people to watch and discuss a movie with them.

An unstructured forum would have no official movie discussion time periods, such as one movie every month. Anyone could make a post and in the subject line put the title of the movie and then start discussing it.

I just think movies might be a fun addition to our community. Any comments? We could even start out with it unstructured, and then if the forum grows we could add in one democratically selected movie to discuss every once in awhile.

I'm open to suggestions!

Chris

Mr. Pessimistic

I would like a movie talk...but I need to focus on one or the other personally. It is hard enough for me to read and post in the book discussions!

But this may entice others to join the movie discussion who would not join the book discussion anyway.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

tarav

I like the idea of an unstructured movie forum.

tarav

I guess my feeling on the subject is best expressed in the sentiment that the people who would be scared off by the term freethinker are people I would not be concerned about having around booktalk anyway. I would guess that if one doesn't join because of the term being present in the logo, it is because one is closed-minded. While the term might turn some people off to joining, and affect quantity, I would think that the logo does attract quality members. Then again, it is only a word. Perhaps the word, freethinker, has no or a very small impact on membership anyway. In that case, whether you keep the old logo or not, it may not really matter! I am certainly no expert on communities and may not share the exact same view of the future of booktalk that everyone else has. Really, Chris, it is your view of the future that you must work towards. I am sure that whatever you decide, it will help you achieve your goals.

Chris OConnor

This has been a rewarding discussion and I think we're best served by maintaining the freethinker focus.

Chris

yellowlight · Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: some thoughts

I am a little confused - it appears that you think that only atheist or agnostics can be "freethinkers"; the freethinking is one of the things that drew me to join your site - I would probably not joined if I saw the word atheist a lot more or felt that as a theist I could not be a part of any discussion available; As the editor of Newsweek stated on Larry King one night - "It is possible for thinking people to have faith, and people of faith to be thinking people"; there are more of us out there, then you think; I think you should definitely keep in "freethinkers";

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: some thoughts

Yellowlight

A freethinker is defined by Dictionary.com as:

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

Infidels.org defines freethinker as:

A freethinker is one who thinks freely -- one who is prepared to consider any possibility, and who determines which ideas are right or wrong by bringing reason to bear, according to a consistent set of rules such as the scientific method.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma.

Bartleby.com defines it as:

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary defines it as:

someone who forms their own opinions and beliefs, especially about religion or politics, rather than just accepting what is officially or commonly believed and taught

Wordsmyth.com defines it as:

one who is not bound by authority or dogma, esp. in religious matters.

Encarta defines it as:

somebody who does not accept dogma: somebody who refuses to accept established views or teachings, especially on religion, and forms opinions as a result of independent inquiry

My personal opinion is that a theist cannot be a freethinker. Few atheists would argue with me, but there are some that maintain that a theist that comes to their beliefs through the vehicle of reason is a freethinker. I don't agree.

In my opinion a person that has weighed all the evidence and then concludes that a deity must exist doesn't understand the very basics of critical thinking and reason. With such a liberal definition of freethinker, just about anyone can claim to be one.

When you break it down, the word simply means, one who thinks freely. So a theist that doesn't adhere to religious dogma could technically be a freethinker....I suppose.

But let us examine their actual beliefs. What do they believe in? Is it the Christian God? If so where did this belief come from? Religious dogma. They believe ancient myths because figures of authority crammed it into their heads when they were young and impressionable. It isn't as if they were walking along the beach, as adults, and they came up with the idea of Jesus dying on the cross for their sins. No, this was taught by figures of authority. And freethinkers think freely, and don't just believe.

But you might think you think freely. How so? How do you defend your God beliefs? Where did they come from? Is there anything apparent or evident in nature that points towards a creator? Not a thing.

The only reason you believe is because you believed long before you knew how to reason.

This is not freethinking.

Chris

yellowlight · Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: some thoughts

Sorry for the delay in answering your reply - but I quite haven't gotten the knack of navigation of this site and couldn't remember exactly where I had replied to keeping "freethinking".

In defense of my position - you in an essence defended it for me by some of the definitions of the word "freethinking". You make the point that persons that believe in a "higher power" - i.e. a deity cannot be a freethinker. If you will reread the definitions the one main definition is that one doesn't just FREELY accept dogma without questioning the validity of the teaching. While I was raised in the traditional sense of Christianity, I have always not fit the "mold" of the traditional Christian - I never say I am religious, only Spiritual. Most atheist that I have met, where raised Catholic; after studying Catholicism and all the rules/traditions, etc. I somewhat understand why they threw-off all ideas of religion, as they were probably suffocating under all of the weight of guilt and "chains" that a structured religion can put upon a person;
I know that 99.9% of the p


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT