¤ milky moon ¤

Adam wrote:

Re: the parallel, massively-off-topic conversation going on here (hey, at least only having one active thread on here makes it easy to keep up with new posts...)

In regards to running the tournament again: I think it would be a case of seeing what the 'landscape' of the community looks like at the time (in another six or twelve months, I'm guessing?).

In regard to the drama: in a nutshell, a flamewar erupted after someone posted a recent video of JN on stage at I think a Golden Shoulders gig, in what appeared to be maternity wear. There was some speculation, obviously, but that was a matchstick in comparison to the furnace of debate as to whether it was an appropriate thing to be talking about. The sad fact is that I imagine many people didn't care that much either way about the initial speculation, but it was always at the top of the group and so the flames kept getting fanned until it was closed, and shortly after, deleted.

A little before that, in some kind of unwitting parody of the Judean People's Front (or was it the People's Front of Judea?), the volume of Biggus Trumpus debate that wafted in caused some of the more left-leaning elements to break away to a separate group. It's been truly astonishing to follow.

I have mooted the idea of moving some of the more involved discussion, such as analysis of lyrics, elsewhere (maybe back to these forums). It has received a little attention, but I only posted it yesterday evening and already you would have to scroll past some 15 posts to find it again!

So, we shall see.

Thank you for the update, Adam.

I do not feel I am missing much on Facebook! There is a place for political debate, but I am not sure a group or forum devoted to Joanna is it - especially if it can't be moved to a backwater where those who don't want to engage in it can ignore it.

On a related note, I also feel that a forum such as this does allow for topics to be sorted. We can use it to quickly locate references using the search or the simple structure of the site, and no post is buried so deep that it can't be found. If we want to use it for banter or speculation, that's here too, but these posts do not obscure the more informative ones.

As for the Golden Shoulders / maternity wear debate ...
I admit I am far more interested in the "recent Golden Shoulders gig" that what she may or may not have been wearing. Did they perform any new songs, I wonder? (JNST7 material!)
But on the other topic ... I can see why some might think it inappropriate to discuss a possible pregnancy. I suppose, if it's tasteful, it shouldn't be a problem, but it could easily cross the boundary. I am reminded of a quote from a minor royal who died last week, and who had a reputation for being very matter of fact: she was apparently asked by a reporter "Are you excited about the news of the latest royal baby?", to which she replies "No, not really: everyone has babies".

And as for why I don't do Facebook (or Twitter, or Kik or WhatsApp or any of a host of other communication things) - well, perhaps it is my age, although I am certainly no technophobe. But I just get the feeling that they generate an awful lot of hiss for only the slightest amount of music. (And maybe I worry that I will waste too much time on them if I should ever get bitten by that particular bug). So I am happy to be here, and don't feel I miss FB.

You're welcome.

You have certainly hit the nail on the head with regard to the merits of a place like this over Facebook for discussion. Unfortunately, I fear that the inertia is too high for a mass migration to happen.

For posterity's sake, I'll post links to the Golden Shoulders stuff below.

Actually I may as well make another thread.

In fact, I have just been thinking about a Jeff Atwood blog post I read the other day. It starts off:

I don't think we computer geeks appreciate how profoundly the rise of the smartphone, and Facebook, has changed the Internet audience. It's something that really only happened in the last five years, as smartphones and data plans dropped radically in price and became accessible – and addictive – to huge segments of the population.

People may have regularly used computers in 2007, sure, but that is a very different thing than having your computer in your pocket, 24/7, with you every step of every day, fully integrated into your life. As Jerry Seinfeld noted in 2014:

But I know you got your phone. Everybody here's got their phone. There's not one person here who doesn't have it. You better have it … you gotta have it. Because there is no safety, there is no comfort, there is no security for you in this life any more … unless when you're walking down the street you can feel a hard rectangle in your pants.

It's an addiction that is new to millions – but eerily familiar to us.

From "only nerds will use the Internet" to "everyone stares at their smartphones all day long!" in 20 years. Not bad, team :-).

— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) January 16, 2015

The good news is that, at this moment, every human being is far more connected to their fellow humans than any human has ever been in the entirety of recorded history.

Spoiler alert: that's also the bad news.

I think we have seen a microcosm of that change in audience here. The Facebook group seems more active than this place ever was, but it is actually quite a different audience. It feels somewhat archaic now to come back here. For example: the site's layout is not the slightest bit mobile-friendly; it is necessary to know BBcode to write high-quality posts; and users are generally anonymous. All of those are very alien to the audience Jeff Atwood describes.