Yes! Feel free to go ahead and do that.
on one hand, I just want to give a shout out to @codinghorror and @sam and that team to say that, thanks to their excellent product, we don’t really need to, since you automatically return to where you left off every time you re-join a thread.
BUT I think a thread strictly for discussion of the book would be better
Therefore I think we still ought to use this thread to hash out our timetable and group procedural stuff and then make a fresh thread that will just be book discussion with the timetable posted in the OP (presumably a new one for each future book, too.)
it would seem our next issues are
- Timetable
firstly, it looks like it will take some of us a while to get a print edition
secondly, there seemed to be a loose consensus on quarterly readings, so roughly three months, but it seems like that should start after the 3 weeks it will take @SmashMartian to get his shipped. So that means… about one week left in January… plus 3 months… plus two more weeks…say… discussion starts 2nd week in May? The 14th? Yes? No?
also, I haven’t checked, but FYI if there is a DRM-free digital copy of this book, there is an IRC group–#bookz–that specializes in this type of thing. I’m not familiar with using IRC but maybe that would be helpful to @SmashMartian and @aeon
- Discuss whole book at once, or chapters at a time, or what?
I’m fine with starting discussion after reading the whole book, that was just my assumption on how it would work. @chgoliz mentioned starting at intervals, which actually sounds fun, too.
I guess people doing intervals won’t hurt anything, but please post the schedule near the top of the thread so we know to browse only when we’re caught up, then people can join the thread either at the end or whenever they want in between.
Right? that makes sense, i think?
2 Likes
Sorry, I already made the new thread and people kind of already started discussing it. 
I just think that really long threads get confusing, people lose track of what has been said and the discussion can kind of shatter. I personally hate going up and down a long thread trying to find that one piece of information some person said. When the old topic is no longer relevant (= selecting a book), a new thread makes more sense to me.
The Kindle edition suddenly isn’t available in the US. WTF?
Looks okay to me?
It’s a Hachette title, so there was that recent kerfuffle?
Weird, I had a page open to the Kindle edition, then re-started my browser, came back to the page, and it said “not available.”
Maybe they sold out. 
2 Likes
??? Creating a new thread is almost three definition of shattering. Splitting, at any rate.
They’ve been Boinged!
1 Like
Well yeah, but it focuses the discussion on a new matter. At any rate, I asked several times if I should make a new thread and I got neither a yay or nay, and then @anon61221983 gave me the heads up. She’s the boss (I’m doing the work and passing the blame 
).
Anyway, what’s done is done. It doesn’t have to be used, it’s just a thread.
1 Like
Yeah, but it does make a long discussion more manageable. When we were doing the Badass games, each chapter/round would have its own thread, with the occasional linkback to prior posts that became relevant again. If the whole thing had been stuck in one thread, it would have really become unmanageable. (Many, if not most, rounds had threads well in excess of 100 posts.)
Here, we’ll have a thread or two for organizational purposes (listing book-candidates, working out the reading schedule, etc.), and then, if we decide to read and discuss the whole thing at once, we’ll have a single discussion thread, whereas if we read and discuss chapter-by-chapter, we’ll probably start a new thread for each chapter to keep the discussion organized and manageable. When necessary, links back to older posts in previous threads will allow us to refer to earlier chapters with ease.
Edit: You’ll note we’re already at Post #250 in this thread! Lotsa scrolling to look something up that was previously said…
2 Likes
OK. link?
This one right here:
Though it’s still a procedural discussion about how we’re gonna approach the reading/discussion schedule. It is not yet a discussion of the book itself. That will most likely warrant a new thread once we get going.
1 Like
Dear god, it looks like Christian Kane can’t decide if he’s Spike or 18th century Angel there
1 Like
Can’t he be both? 
Yes, this thread is full of wonderful jokes but ceased to forward the effort.
1 Like
Suggestion for our next book?
Sounds like it’d have wangs in it, so @othermichael will be happy.
4 Likes
Well, this seems interesting:
I would like to throw this in for consideration.
Seems to be relevant to some of our discussions about the forces from the 30s and 40s that continue to shape current American discourse.
Plus, I want to see @anon61221983 and @FoolishOwl dialogue over this.
4 Likes
As we’re on a non-fiction choice, I’m going to offer
for no other reason than I want to read it and food’s a subject I have an interest in.
3 Likes
I heard a presentation Kruse gave a couple of years ago on the earlier version of this topic, and after listening to the interview on Fresh Air last night, it was interesting to see how it evolved.
And one of my colleagues was reading an interesting book today about the history of conservative thought, and I can’t remember what it was called now.
1 Like
