[stylist] Assumption all must participate in Book discussions/reviews?

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

But why do we assume that if a certain thread occurs on Stylist that all
Stylist readers must participate? Like now, if you don't want to
participate in a particular thread, you don't read posts with that
subject. That is how a discussion about a book would work. The argument
that some, or most, don't have a lot of time for such a thread doesn't
hold up well considering we all can pick and choose what threads we
participate with. And if, like me, you already read a lot on your own,
this would be an opportunity to read a book, just as you would do on
your own, except participate, as much or less as you want, in a
discussion on it? If you don't have time, or interest, for a certain
book, skip that one and participate in another. Or just skip any thread
about a current book discussion. And we're not talking about a
never-ending thread. There would be quite a bit of time between reading
books and the discussion of them. Plenty of time in between where no
current discussion would be happening.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 22
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:56:53 -0500
From: "Jacobson, Shawn D" <Shawn.D.Jacobson at hud.gov>
To: 'Writer's Division Mailing List' <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Thinking about a book-lovers listserve
Message-ID:
	
<A1A3EBA504582C449F7E37E5039CCD1727E8098018 at EXMAIL03A.exh.prod.hud.gov>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I second that emotion.  I get four magazines and try to keep up with all
of them and read other stuff to; just don't have the time to do the NLS
book collection justice.

Shawn