BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Is the Head Shop a ghetto?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:02 / 27.08.02
When I'm in the mood to communicate, about something, serious or frivolous, I go the Conversation. All sorts of people will join in. Some of it I'll chuckle at, some I'll be intrigued by, some I won't get and will pay little heed. If I feel moved, I'll post a response. I will learn about life and, more importantly, about other people's lives and feelings.

When I'm in the mood to listen to a lecture or attend a tutorial, I go to the Headshop. Once in a while there will be a discussion about something I want to know more about and, often, somebody who knows a lot more than I do about the underpinning theory will point up some food for thought. If I were to post a reply, I'd be nervously awaiting a PM with my grade for the test I just sat. I get enough of that at work without doing it in my own time.

I go to the Conversation a lot. Can't remember the last time I posted, if ever, in the Headshop. Of more concern for the general health of the forum is that I can't even be arsed to go check out what's being discussed there much of the time. No reason to have separate fora if there are not clear distinctions to be made between the two in terms of style and content, but I'm sure the quality of intellectual debate would not be that much diluted by cracking the door open just a soupçon wider.

Kolb's fairly widely promulgated learning theory stipulates that all learning must involve (1)a concrete experience, then (2)reflection on that experience, then (3)applying a theoretical construct, then (4)experimenting with the new learning. A lot of the theoretical constructs are well (but not always) exhibited in the Headshop but an account of personal experience will often be dismissed as mere anecdote.

I don't really care. I like playing with the other kids in the sandpit. We have fun. And I learn how to play nice and build fuck-off Gaudi sandcastles out of personal reminiscence and undisciplined intellect.

Yes, the Headshop is a ghetto - an original Venetian ghetto with canals encircling it. Ganesh goes there and sends me postcards.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:00 / 28.08.02
May I suggest you step out of policy and take a look at the topics under each of Revolution's fora. Head Shop reads so much more up its own arse than any of the others- I mean in Laboratory the main topic is psychic warriors, Switchboard's been talking a lot about Palestine and smoking... currently Head Shop is discussing 'the dignity of difference'. I tend to post in there but unlike many other parts of the board it requires a certain amount of specificity and knowledge and sometimes that's just too much.

Laboratory: what kind of discussion are you actually looking to start there? I think you actually have to really consider it before you decide how to approach the stillness of the forum. Are you looking for moral debate on science? The problem is that if you take what most people who aren't scientifically minded know about science it does become completely crossed over with everything else. I can talk about the planets but the physics behind it... nope.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:01 / 28.08.02
Not assuming myself to be an "able poster" or anything... but the reason I don't post in the Head Shop so much is purely because I'm finding the Switchboard too interesting at the moment- and, as Nick says, it is easier to jump in- opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has one- theories require formulation (same goes for the Magick- I really do have to leave the computer and get out of the house occasionally, so can't afford to get TOO absorbed)... and I use the Conversation for r'n'r, as it were.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
09:32 / 28.08.02
I second 'Nesh's motion to invite those who feel intimidated by the head shop to explain way. I personally don't like to post to the Headshop unless I feel I actually have something worthwhile and relatively intelligient to contribute; but if I do feel this way, regardless of whether or not I'm as educated on this topic as others I will contribute. How do others feel about this? I would say that it does seem you'll find certain posters in the Headshop more often than others, but I'll think you'll find that with any forum.

A ghetto, though? I dunno.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:52 / 28.08.02
Janina - Um...I know the 'Dignity of Difference' looks a bit arse, but it's the title of Jonathan Sacks' book, which I was proposing we read...but actually, I suppose that makes your point - I knew that was a appropriate way to title a topic in the Head Shop.

I don't think the Head Shop should be thought of as a ghetto - in fact, in a sense, its rarity value on Barbelith is that it's somewhere you do actually have to have a clue. If you jump into a discussion on Freud and you've never read any, someone may well, politely, tear you a new asshole. On the other hand, if you say you don't know much, someone will probably quote you the relevant passage (oo-er) and link to a source. As it stands, Head Shop postings often are an indicator of greater depth of knowledge and/or a willingness to do some work offline to understand what the issues are - something we should treasure.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:08 / 28.08.02
Zocher posted:

Kolb's fairly widely promulgated learning theory stipulates that all learning must involve (1)a concrete experience, then (2)reflection on that experience, then (3)applying a theoretical construct, then (4)experimenting with the new learning. A lot of the theoretical constructs are well (but not always) exhibited in the Headshop but an account of personal experience will often be dismissed as mere anecdote.

Kolb's (who? heh heh) four steps as enumerated by ZoCher strike me as the ideal framework for an initial post in the HeadShop. I find that the discussion I most enjoy reading in the Headshop come from someone applying "a theoretical construct" to an experience, rather than threads that start "I was reading this book_____ the other day, and..." (of course, I've been guilty of that as well).

Perhaps a reformulation of the HeadShop along the lines of this learning theory is in order. Instead of being a place where "educated" people discuss "educated" matters, it can become a place where personal experience is transformed with the catalyst of theory.

As far as personal experience being dismissed as mere anecdote, that (usually) hasn't worried me as when this dismissal happens, as it's (usually) because the poster failed to tie hir experience together with some sort of theory. However, the devaluing of personal experience in the HeadShop has perhaps been pushed too far; I know that I have to think long and hard before I dare to use the first person singular pronoun in a post there.
 
 
Ganesh
12:28 / 28.08.02
Yeah - I think it's unexamined anecdotes that are anathema to the Head Shop.
 
 
Loomis
15:20 / 28.08.02
The Headshop is a forum to which I pay a lot of attention, and I post there a little, and though it moves a little slowly at times, I don't think it's in any serious trouble. Sure there's a slight feeling of intimidation, but anything valuable carries that with it. It's a good thing that we think twice before posting there, as it cuts down the noise when you're wading through a 3 page thread. And as far as quantity goes, the kind of topics discussed there just don't come up ten times a day. Nature of the beast and all that.

I've noticed that I'm often hesitant to post unfinished ideas, as I'm concerned that others will point out the holes in them, as though I offered my post as a conclusion, rather than as one piece of the puzzle. People should feel free to add their perspective without needing an all-inclusive theory. It's important to tease out ideas and look from new angles, even if you don't have a singular answer to the abstract. So yeah, a little lee goes a long way.

I would say that the paucity of posting is also partly due to the fear of repetition. Unless you get in early, your point might be made for you, and one of the biggest no-no's of the forum is posting "I agree with x". If I had a penny for all the posts I could've made but someone beat me to it, whether it's a theoretical perspective in the Head Shop or a penis joke in the Conversation, well I'd have enough to buy a round of filthbeer.
 
 
Loomis
15:35 / 28.08.02
Er, make that a pint of filthbeer.

Would you believe half?
 
 
Mourne Kransky
17:27 / 28.08.02
Nick: If you jump into a discussion on Freud and you've never read any, someone may well, politely, tear you a new asshole.

I think I fear the tearing of a new asshole and am intimidated by that. Have to say, in my endless quest to avoid getting on with a job I should be doing at the moment (dull, dull, dull), I took a trip to the Headshop today, read through the first few threads, and assiduously checked for evidence of asshole tearing. There wasn't even a hint of it but there was lots of explaining complicated stuff in layman's terms and I learned a bit more about Nietzsche, if only how to spell his name correctly.

Perhaps I've witnessed some brutal asshole tearing in the past and a reaction has set in. I do not mean to disparage Headshoppers, who are well known for their kindness to small children and animals, and perhaps it will just never be my thang to loiter there. It puzzles me still that some barblers whose erudite and very thought-provoking posts enliven the Conversation seem similarly uncomfortable there and are rarely/never seen.

Back to my bucket and spade now.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:33 / 28.08.02
Can't remember if this has been pointed out already, but a post in Conversation is guaranteed to garner more replies than one in Head Shop. I think what we've got here is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy - the "hardly anyone posts to Head Shop, so I'll start this thread where people are going to see it" thinking is going to deprive the one forum of content and actually contribute to the problem.

For my part, I tend to check Head Shop out more than I do, say, Switchboard, but I only post when I either know my onions 100% or have a relevant, albeit stupid, question about the subject at hand.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
01:21 / 29.08.02
While I'd like to think I'm one of the erudite non-posters that are referred to in this thread - fat chance, eh? - I'd agree with Loomis' points about wanting to avoid "me to" and also about the wariness of posting half-finished (-assed?) ideas there. There is, I think, also, a bit of a "but I'll look like a dick if I say I don't know who that is!" overtone to the place, also.

It's also very true that I feel uncomfortable posting there unless I've got a stack of time to engage with the topic. Same with Magick, same as Stoatie: these are Important Topics, I guess, and I feel like I need to give them proper consideration, though it is true that quickly dashed-off responses are often equally valid to the arguments at hand. Provided, as has been indicated, that you can provide some kind of support for them.

I feel like I'm letting myself down if I post something and then say "Hmm. Must have a think. More later." - it's like there's a sense of not reaching the heights of debate or perception that one imagines the Head Shop encourages. Hmm.

Must have a think. More later.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:35 / 29.08.02
I think I know very little but I have a strange tendency to post in Head Shop. The only person who's even started to tear me limb from limb is Haus. Considering that I was being quite incoherent and expressing my hatred of the classics at the time I can't really blame him plus I knew what was going to happen anyway and found it a very enlivening experience. No one should fear being torn apart particularly over a phone line and sometimes you learn a lot from it so it's a good thing really.

I would also like to confess that I quoted Bonnie Tyler in Head Shop... it was deleted and though I suggested that it should be I feel quite offended. She's a philosopher of our recent past and had a lot to say about men and I thought it fitted in perfectly with the thread. Definitely over-moderated.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:26 / 29.08.02
I started a philosophy degree and bugged out to do politics when I realised how mathematical it was. I hate having to close all the possibilities in an argument - much prefer opening them and proposing new worlds. Hence I use the Head Shop to provide myself with some discipline (oo-er).

You're right, it is generally kind to those who express ignorance - I meant only that it doesn't appear to suffer fools gladly - an appearance I may have helped to give it, I fear. The posters who feel more at home there do throw heavy bids at one another from time to time.

On the whole, though, I find people's responses here heartening.

It occurs to me, too, that many intelligent people simply don't care about the things we discuss there, and so there will be intelligent people on Barbelith who don't post there. My mother would define intelligence by the standard of having little interest in what gets said there.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
07:56 / 29.08.02
Having just stumbled across this thread I just want to answer Ganesh's original point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the Head Shop, but I think it's a natural response to the Switchboard getting a lot busier in the last few months. Switchy used to be Shopies weaker twin, now Tom's fed it it's vitamins and it's grown big and strong. I think the shrinkage in Head Shop discussions is just a natural reaction to that and in a month or two a natural equilibrium will be found.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:23 / 29.08.02
I also think current affairs being what they are currently (if that's not a tautology) the Switchboard's naturally gonna be kind of busy... and it's summer an' all... people go outside sometimes.
Lada's right though- there's always (well, in the year since I've been here anyway) been a fluctuation in any forum's relative busy-ness... it probably averages out somewhere along the line.
 
 
Tom Coates
08:51 / 29.08.02
To Grant: "Much of Lab's remit seems to be marveling over new discoveries - not much of a debate, there." Except that's clearly untrue! Science is being confronted by some of the most profoundly controversial discoveries ever - from the ethics of genetic engineering, to computer surveillance, through to specific issues with various computer companies and anti-trust stuff, predictive marketing, potential uses for new technology, ideas of technological utopias etc. etc. etc.

I'm thinking maybe we need to send off the moderators for each of the forums board wide to go and think about all the current debates they can think about in the world and see if they can figure out where they should be put on the board - and also maybe do some more research into current issues that are being discussed in the relevant communities attached to them. So for example, maybe we should be declaring a set of magazines or books that represent each forum.

So for example, I might say that the London Review of Books is a good basis for the kind of discussions ot go on in Books, while a combination of Sight and Sound and Empire is what we're looking for in Films, while a combination of the broadsheet press, the Economist and indymedia is what we're looking for in the Switchboard. I don't think we have to worry too much about the health of the Magick section - although perhaps we need to have another forum for 'Spiritual and Religious' matters that aren't directly associated with Magick, because I think they tend to get drowned out.

I suppose I'd probably end up with the Laboratory being somewhere between Scientific American / New Scientist and the BBC's science pages - with a few populat science books thrown in as well...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:01 / 29.08.02
Er, I thought the prevailing idea was not to prescribe particular "this is what we are" kind of limits on fora. If only because it's too exclusionist - the LRB and many film mags are out of reach, both financially and in terms of germane publication availability for me, and I'd imagine for other posters.

And to be perfectly honest, some of the critical rigour you get here is worth ten times what an Empire sloppy handjob is.

Anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Stirring up debate is good, yes, but not by tying it to pulp.
 
 
Tom Coates
12:36 / 29.08.02
I absolutely get what you're saying here, Luke. But what I meant is not that we should base all our discussions on stuff that's in print, but that we should maybe identify some books and magazines that we could declare to represent some of the conversations that we'd like to have. What's the Lab for? Well what's the New Scientist for? We'll have some of that... What's Books for? Well let's look at what review publications and book-culture as a whole talk about.

I suppose what I'm saying is that publications like New Scientist are kind of offshoots of the culture of science and interest in science, and that they show some of the things that we could be talking about or debating. As such I don't want us to copy them, but I equally feel that we should find it more than plausible to cover much of the same ground as them...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:55 / 29.08.02
But that also sounds like your plan is for the threads of barbelith to become more like the webzine than a discussion; wouldn't a happier medium be to turn the longer, successful, semi-closed threads into webzine pieces with collective authorship?

I don't know - while I think perhaps aiming to overtake print media staples (and let's face it, it could be done if people made the effort, he said, speaking to himself especially) is a good thing for reviving conversations of rigour here, I still think it's a bit odd to align too closely with different publications. As mentioned, it brings problems when one considers The Magick: some think it's that place where the weird shit goes, there's those who view it perhaps more philosophically, there's those who view it as a school for chaotes and tarot-flippers: which do you choose for them? That disparate nature occurs, to greater and lesser degrees, in most fora, and I think that saying "hey, it's like X" will prove as frustrating as some of the ideas about having "required reading" lists would prove.

That said, I do see yr logic for wanting the level of debate found in some publications. Rereading the post after mine, again, I think suggesting that you want to borrow the spirit, say, of publications, is probably better than how it was previously phrased: that gives it the idea of the bar being raised: well, that's how they did it - now we do it...

I guess the nub is that for these conversations to work, there need to people people putting in the hard yards on them. And in the headshop, it can be a fucking steep climb. Dumbing down isn't an option, but perhaps a different way of presenting topics - a weekly roundtable, say? - would interest people in a slightly less threatening way than some of what churns around in there does?
 
 
grant
13:27 / 29.08.02
I think what I'm describing is the difference between New Scientist and, say, New York Times Review of Books. The former presents new information, while the latter discusses pre-existent information, mulling it over and critiquing it.

I'm not saying there's not room for critique in the Lab (the current "Techno-Rapture" thread being a great example), it's just... less conducive to debate. Or rather, less conducive to different kinds of debates. Prime questions being: Is this the future? Is this a good thing?

I was really fascinated by the feminism vs. scientific method thread (and am afraid I went a bit overboard when I started digging articles up in the supplementary thread) - that was a healthy discussion ranging over a wide variety of questions. Of course, it also started in the Head Shop. Some of the points in that thread may also typify the kind of thing I'm talking about: science, by its nature, give determinate answers to things. This does that. That doesn't do this. Theory & critique, on the other hand, is delightfully dynamic & indeterminate.

I suppose what I'm saying is it's possible to debate in the Lab, but it ain't easy. Have work cut out for me....
 
 
Tom Coates
14:57 / 29.08.02
Ok - rather than me being all 'hey look guys, why don't you go and do all this work stuff', I thought maybe I should go and do some work of my own. So here's some stuff from the New Scientist frontpage that you COULD use to start topics with if you were interested...

Topic - Is the "Asteroid threat" hysterical doomsaying?
--> Referencing: Saving the planet with an airbag

Topic - what are the limits of Cyborgism?
--> Referencing: Good legs control paralysed partners

Topic - Copyright and Copyleft
--> What's the best and most ethical way to deal with patents and ideas in technology and science.

Topic - Do we know enough?
--> Is sustained scientific development legitimate or necessary any more?

Any of those interesting?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:01 / 29.08.02
Oooh, I like the last one. Is that in this week's issue? I didn't see it.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:27 / 29.08.02
Nope, I made that one up. But if you want to start a topic about it in the Lab I'll give you a big sloppy wet kiss...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:22 / 29.08.02
We'd need someone to propose the notion, alas. I'm a neophile, so...
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:03 / 29.08.02
You can start a couple of Lab threads every week by just reading New Scientist. Last week there was an article about how the Y chromosome is dying - bad news for men. And an article about how voting patterns behave like magnetism.

Unfortunately, if it isn't current, you can't get reference as the archive isn't free.

More generally, I think that all the fora would be better off if they had some permanent links for material and people that get frequently discussed. This might even be bolstered by people writing articles on their favourite topics.

In the Headshop, this may diminish some of the intimidation people feel if they have a ready made source of background information. It won't help with all discussions, but it might with some.

As for grant's point that
I suppose what I'm saying is it's possible to debate in the Lab, but it ain't easy.

I know what he means. I don't think that this is an artifact of scientific thought, as many of my real life debates are with scientists, but it is a feature of the board. Whether this is because of a lack of interest and knowledge of science or simply a self prepetuating trend I couldn't say. I have definitely fallen into a habit of not starting threads in the Lab because it isn't worth the effort (sorry mod, it's coming soon). Perhaps I'll give enthusiasm a go.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
12:19 / 30.08.02
Nick: "I challenge the primacy of that focus..."

I assume you intended this phrase to be used henceforth whenever someone posts something off-topic or thread-rotting... It's a marvellous rationalisation. Let's try to get it into everyday Barbespeak.

re: The Head Shop... did some thinking about this the other day. I hardly ever post there, largely because of some well-meaning but oafish criticism I got last time I tried. Discussion on human sexuality. Foucault is referenced (or summoned once more from his foul-smelling stygian pit, if you're like me and think he's overreferenced). I pointed out that I disagreed with the main points behind the post, and also with the ideas the Foucer was writing about, who I'd studied previously. New topic is then started ('Foucault 101', or suchlike) for puir wee Jack, who hadn't read or didn't understand what the Great Man was talking about. Jack thinks FUCK YOU, and goes off to post in heavy traffic, as requested.

I have read Foucault. Similarly, Derrida, Barthes, a smidge of Lacan, Eco, and a variety of other influential critics and t(h)inkers. I've even made up semi-amusing puns around their names on occasion. I like to think that, given that in academia I was able to relate said Names and their Deep Thoughts to other related subjects and thence to compose edifying and well-received arguments and dissertations, that I also understood what I read. Anyway. That's the kind of intimidating and reductive response to questioning that I think may have put people off going Headshopping. I've dipped my toe back in recently a bit as attitudes seem to have softened somewhat...

But is it a ghetto? Well, people go there specifically for a specific kind of discussion, discussed in a specific manner. While other fora are about debating or discussing certain subjects or areas of interest, the Head Shop is unique in that it's about the form of the debate as much as it is about the subject being debated. It also, like it or not, can slant towards the academic on occasion, which leaves those without a particular background a little cold - not because they're incapable of analytical thought, but because there's a structural jargon related to academia which some posters won't have encountered before, and that can be off-putting. So, yes. It's a ghetto, in the sense of being a group isolated from others groups...

I don't see anything wrong with that. According to my trusty dictionary, ghetto comes from the name of the Venetian island where Jews were forced to live, gheto island (sorry, can't do accents), gheto meaning 'foundry'. Ghetar (sorry, still can't do accents), means 'to cast'. Good enough for me...

I think that the Head Shop is now the kind of environment that can allow people to experiment with the forum without feeling as though they're invading a cosy and introverted country club. But it's demanding, and putting together a post takes Time and Thought, something not all of us have in abundance. The Head Shop scares people? Maybe it should. The Head Shop intimidates people? Different thing entirely.

And fora will always bleed into one another. It's the nature of a message board. Can't be helped, certainly can't be stopped. You can adjust the forum abstracts all you like, but someone's still going to say "You, know, I think this would be better off in the Switchboard/the Conversation/the Gathering/the seventh circle of what-the-fuck..." And people are still going to misplace threads.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:52 / 30.08.02
Nick: "I challenge the primacy of that focus..."

I assume you intended this phrase to be used henceforth whenever someone posts something off-topic or thread-rotting... It's a marvellous rationalisation. Let's try to get it into everyday Barbespeak.

Oh, please. I don't agree with your formulation of the issue. I've said so. I said so in-thread and I still think that was appropriate. I've had flack on the thread and PMs of support, which I find in itself somewhat significant. It wasn't a rationalisation, and I still don't feel I was off-topic, but it's over, I'm not going to belabour the issue any further. You don't seem opposed to the notion of topic-bleed elsewhere, so I suggest we just call it a day.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:21 / 31.08.02
The thing that always puts me off posting in the Headshop is the kneejerk anti-science/empiricism vibe. This is a board-wide thing, really, but it's most evident in the Headshop.

It's most annoying when it's lazy and unexamined: "Oh, you just need to drop some acid/read some quantum theory/etc etc-- then you'll Get It!"

HULK SMAAAASH!
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:05 / 03.09.02
I think you should al stop being so anxious...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:20 / 03.09.02
Yah. And then you can solve Woody Allen's personal problems, too. 'Cos, you know, it's not like he wants to be that way.
 
 
Lionheart
16:20 / 11.09.02
Whoa, hold on a second. The Laboratory isn't dying. And there's very little debate at the moment because we debate new developments as soon as they develop and we usually share a common opinion. For example, the Y chromosome dying story was mentioned in the Lab back in the year 2001. We've also covered genetic enginnering at least a year ago and a bunch of other stuff. The Lab is always slow at this time of year. Back when the Barbelith Underground was still the Nexus the Information forum slumped sometime around September but always kicked into high gear later on. So what i'm saying is that the Lab isn't dying, it's just taking a nap.
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:12 / 11.09.02
But Lionheart, I think you've put your finger on one of the problems with the Lab. There is too much talk of the latest development and a bunch of repsonses where people agree that certain facts are cool. Too much consensus when I think that there are serious technology/science related questions to be asked.

For instance, you and me have had a bit of a discussion there but that sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule. On the whole, I think of it as a shallow forum.
 
 
The Strobe
20:21 / 14.09.02
I thought I'd better contribute to this discussion, as it's a very worthwhile one, and explain my own shying-away from Head Shop.

It's not so much simple fear of criticism, as justified appreciation of lack of knowledge. I'm not going to enter into a discussion where I've got no idea and just start ruminating... because for me, that's not what philosophy, and thought, and stuff like that, is about. I'd feel uncomfortable talking about something I at least hadn't brushed up on beforehand. Possibly it's academic rigour taking its toll - I mean, give me a couple of pints and I can ruminate on anything for ages and bore you to tears.

It's just... for me, there is a wrong answer. Brief sidetrack: at school, whilst many people did A-Level English simply because they loved it, lots of people also did it as a third A-level; it seemed like an easy option as there "aren't any wrong answers; you can say what you like". Oh, but there are. And that's the thing. I'm all too aware that there ARE wrong answers, just as much as there ARE interesting but ultimately wrong lines of inquiry. The latter interest me; I don't like producing the former. And so I'll happily enter into stuff that I feel I can comment on without going "me too" or "gee, I haven't read any key texts here, but what the hell!".

It's also a matter of simple orientation; I came to Barbelith mainly through the Spectacle, and it's what I love the most - decent, interesting discussion of the Arts like I get nowhere else. I'm now branching out, and Head Shop's a new discovery - I read it relatively regularly, but only on a skim. I need to get back to broadband, and a bit more time, to sit and think and really enter discussion. It isn't the MOST accessible forum on the board, but it is one of the most interesting and rewarding when you get there.

So maybe advertising? Big red flashing arrow by it? I'm feeling that possibly, compared to the rest of the board, Conversation's a bit overpopulated at the moment. But maybe that's just my grumpy, anti-social side talking.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:39 / 15.09.02
Yeah but conversation's the social area, of course it's over-populated, everyone likes to talk complete toss at each other.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply