Loneliness

[Nick Armstrong]

- the trouble with these internet chatroom thingies is that, unlike real chatter between groups of people, you can't see the people who just nod quietly in agreement.

On the other hand, fortunately you can't see the ones going





If ever I feel some gem of mine has been ignored, I tend to bump it up by quoting myself later in the thread until someone reacts...

Seriously, it's a good point - I'm sure all of us have felt at least crestfallen when a carefully thought-out post gets no response and the thread sweeps on.

You can be sure however that posts have been read and appreciated, as ferney says, albeit in silence.

[P. G. Tipps]

On the other hand, fortunately you can't see the ones going





Seriously, it's a good point - I'm sure all of us have felt at least crestfallen when a carefully thought-out post gets no response and the thread sweeps on.

Nah ... it's probably just way above the heads of the normally responsive forum hoi polloi, Caliban.

Edit: I am being facetious and certainly NOT sarcastic ...

[Conchis]

I enjoyed the documentary (I didn't know there'd been a radio programme), particularly Sarah Maitland's contribution which, I thought, summed up my own feelings.

[jean]

- the trouble with these internet chatroom thingies is that, unlike real chatter between groups of people, you can't see the people who just nod quietly in agreement.

Which is probably why people sometimes signal their presence, even by simply saying they know nothing about what's being discussed.

Then they are rounded on and told to shut up if they've nothing to say - which would hardly happen in the course of a face-to-face discussion, I'd hope.

(It's just happened again.)

[Mary Chambers]

Then they are rounded on and told to shut up if they've nothing to say - which would hardly happen in the course of a face-to-face discussion, I'd hope.

(It's just happened again.)

It has

[Dave2002]

It has

Indeed, but for what it's worth I expect we can all get over it.

In the meantime this might help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_%2...Bowie_album%29

and this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympho..._1_%28Glass%29

This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6xBFyA_aw is about as much as I know too .... ***

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._4_%28Glass%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TZsW99Vw_U

*** I expect many people will link to this today.

[Mary Chambers]

I had plenty to say, as it happens. I wasn't surprised to be attacked for my point of view. I was totally astonished to find my posts edited out.

(What has this to do with loneliness, by the way?)

[Dave2002]

I had plenty to say, as it happens. I wasn't surprised to be attacked for my point of view. I was totally astonished to find my posts edited out.

(What has this to do with loneliness, by the way?)

Not quite sure - just happened to notice the issue in the other thread. Also, I think you made the first reference to the issue in this thread - "it has".
I guess Major Tom could have been lonely.

Suggesting that you had plenty to say does perhaps undermine your case, as you did suggest that you knew nothing - with the obvious "conclusion" that you perhaps had little say, but in a real live situation rather than an email/forum that could have been handled differently.

I didn't know your posts had been edited out - they were still there when I last looked, perhaps 1 hour ago - I've been doing "boring" computer systems work in the intervening period.

Something to do with treading on other people's sacred cows I guess.

Bws

[Mary Chambers]

I only mean that I had plenty to say about the place of popular culture on Radio 3, not about particular examples of it (and I wasn't referring to Glass at all).

[Dave2002]

I'm sure you were responding to David Bowie, but my links were relevant.

[jean]

...I think you made the first reference to the issue in this thread - "it has".

That was in response to my noting, here, with reference to the Bowie thread, that interactions take a different and (in this case) more confrontational line than they would do in face-to-face discussions.

I thought that was relevant tio what was being discussed (here).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That was in response to my noting, here, with reference to the Bowie thread, that interactions take a different and (in this case) more confrontational line than they would do in face-to-face discussions.

I thought that was relevant tio what was being discussed (here).

I thought so, too - and again, the absence of a "tone of voice" might be the cause of the confrontation in this instance; people reading into Mary's declaration (that whilst she had heard of Bowie, she didn't know his work) a tone of self-pride that wasn't intended. How One becomes Lonely - misunderstanding plays such a large part on the Internet, I feel.