we are now eclectic in general

[3bob]

or we could call it pot-luck?

[GrandmasterP]

I liked ' General'.

Eclectic sounds a bit poncey to some English ears as it carries Church of England and Missionary baggage.

The Eclectic Society for example

Now called

The Church Missionary Society...

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclectic_Society_(Christian)

Edited July 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Chang]

eclectic

ɪˈklɛktɪk/

adjective

adjective: eclectic; adjective: Eclectic

1. 1.

   deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources.

   "universities offering an eclectic mix of courses"

   
   
2. 2.

   Philosophy

   denoting or belonging to a class of ancient philosophers who did not belong to or found any recognized school of thought but selected doctrines from various schools of thought.

noun

noun: eclectic; plural noun: eclectics

1. 1.

   a person who derives ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources.

[soaring crane]

I can't quite warm to the word, neither.

[sean]

Personally I was torn between "Diverse Discussion" and "Eclectic Discussion".

 

Please discuss your preferences, I'm open to renaming.

 

Thanks,

Sean

[KenBrace]

Personally I was torn between "Diverse Discussion" and "Eclectic Discussion".

 

Please discuss your preferences, I'm open to renaming.

 

Thanks,

Sean

I think 'Diverse Discussion' sounds better.

[doc benway]

 

eclectic

ɪˈklɛktɪk/

adjective

adjective: eclectic; adjective: Eclectic

1. 1.

   deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources.

   "universities offering an eclectic mix of courses"
2. 2.

   Philosophy

   denoting or belonging to a class of ancient philosophers who did not belong to or found any recognized school of thought but selected doctrines from various schools of thought.

noun

noun: eclectic; plural noun: eclectics

1. 1.

   a person who derives ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources.

 

I prefer General

[Apech]

How about Eccentric Discussion? Or Electric Percussion for that matter.

[sean]

"Potluck" is starting to grow on me.

 

Sean

[soaring crane]

hmmm... diverse, diversity....

 

brainstorming...

 

diverse discussion forum

 

mixed nuts

 

the multiverse

 

open forum

 

open minds

 

wide open

 

varied and sundry

 

the sky's the limit

[doc benway]

"Potluck" is starting to grow on me.

 

Sean

 

I could get used to that

[sean]

One of the things I bump into is that "Taoist Discussion" is already very broad, diverse, eclectic, inclusive, etc.

 

So it doesn't feel quite right to make a distinction between "Taoist Discussion" and any of these.

 

"General" might make the most sense.

 

I'm also really enjoying the implications of "Potluck" as well. It has a kind of resonance with Taoist/Chinese culture. I can imagine a literal potluck gathering where the priests, hermits, shamans shared stew with Buddhists, Confucians, Muslims, lay folk, town crazies, etc.

 

Sean

[GrandmasterP]

General was always good.

It wasn't broke so why fux it?

[Protector]

Potluck with that *rimshot*

[3bob]

well, "potluck" should at least be good for a grin now and then

[GrandmasterP]

Should we bring food?

We do to Potlucks round here.

Cake is always acceptable.

Chocolate for preference.

Edited July 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

Im not crazy about the casual and slightly downbeat connotation of lumping all these things into a 'potluck' or labeling it with an adjective like eclectic.

[PLB]

How about:

"Various things people want to talk about and this space is a good place to do that because nobody is calling what is talked about here a topic of conversation, per se."

 

Okay. It is a bit wordy.

 

How about: "Without Qualification."

 

That captures some of it but the negativity ot the without is a turn off to those who do want to qualify, make distinctions, and maybe even argue with other people.

 

I am hungry. I am going to cook something now. Oh, but my sudden impulse to completely abandon the discussion to satisfy my own personal needs gives me another idea: We could not call it anything. It would just be this blank space. And people would be saying stuff there.

[Stosh]

How about:

"Various things people want to talk about and this space is a good place to do that because nobody is calling what is talked about here a topic of conversation, per se."

 

Okay. It is a bit wordy.

 

How about: "Without Qualification."

 

That captures some of it but the negativity ot the without is a turn off to those who do want to qualify, make distinctions, and maybe even argue with other people.

 

I am hungry. I am going to cook something now. Oh, but my sudden impulse to completely abandon the discussion to satisfy my own personal needs gives me another idea: We could not call it anything. It would just be this blank space. And people would be saying stuff there.

D'ya mean like ,,, umm ...a general usage category?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Stosh

[MooNiNite]

i prefer "general".

 

a lot of forum changes lately adding to the complexity of the website, what happened to simplicity?

 

[PLB]

D'ya mean like ,,, umm ...a general usage category?

 

 

Something like that could work. It is worth a try.

[3bob]

since when is a good pot luck downbeat ?

[Stosh]

Generally speaking I like the relatively equal heights of the soapboxes ,for the various affilliations , the Tao Bums provides

It strikes me as very graceful and respectful.

A main course gets more respect than the side dishes typical of a potluck meal ( hence the terms main and side)

and while Taomeow may be able to steal the blue ribbon with her green bean casserole , not everyone will surmount the additional obstacle of unequal billing .

Let each man or woman, be judged by the content of their posts rather than the color of their clan affilliation patch.

I stand here for fair play , equal billing , and a chicken in every pot.

 

( and besides, it sounds like a game show category )

[soaring crane]

I think there needs to be a clear(er) delineation between 'General' and 'Off Topic' sections, regardless of the naming process.

[Stosh]

I think there needs to be a clear(er) delineation between 'General' and 'Off Topic' sections, regardless of the naming process

What is , or what do you feel to be , is the importance of having the division? I havent done a study but it seems that the free form approach of the general section gave it vigor., and the off topic was where you said stuff that had nothing at all to do attitudes or generalized approaches to living. Too much dross in General , you think?