We are Not a Political Debate Group! ALL MEMBERS READ!

>1 Tess_W:

May I suggest that you pin this topic?

>2 lilithcat: Good idea.....now I just need to learn how to do that!

>3 Tess_W:

Since you're the admin, you should see over on the top right the option to "Pin this Topic", just under "Star this Topic" and "Ignore this Topic".

Never mind! I see you found it. ;-)

Thanks, Tess. I'm glad to see more members here, but it does seem to open the door for those who want to carry their particular arguments wherever they go.

I've already blocked one recent addition, and I can do it again! But it would be better if folks just respected the guidelines here.

You do a great job. 👍

Thanks, Tess.

You can also make your post appear as an official message from the Group Admin as well as pinning it. I think you'll find it under "More" at the bottom of the post, then "Admin Actions".

Edited to add: I see you've now done so.

You might like to think about adding religion to what’s off limits. The Green Dragon has banned religion and politics right from the start and is much the happier for it. Plenty of other groups if you want to talk religion or politics.

>7 haydninvienna: see sentence two

>8 Tess_W: Whoops! Begging your pardon.

I can see banning debates over religion and politics. However, I sometimes find it interesting and helpful when people preface booktalk by explaining that they're coming from a particular ethnic, partisan, or sectarian POV by way of explanation. I don't see that as debate.

Deliberately trying to insult people is just bad manners. Good luck trying to rein in the boors. If they're over 60 and still haven't learned to respect people, all the "READ THIS" pins in the world won't fix them ...

>10 nohrt4me2: I agree with your first paragraph (and second!). Background info is great---that's not debate.

>1 Tess_W: Here, here!!!!

>5 terriks: there are just people who need to stir things up, no matter what the consequence, booting them, or putting them on ignore, stops it quick enough

>13 cindydavid4: You're absolutely right. :)

Tess I'm so glad this message is here. I'm new to this group and part of the reason I don't join many groups is because they often devolve into politics, anger, prejudice, etc. Thank you for helping make this group more enjoyable.

>You are so very welcome!

Is this group about books - any books?/ Or just about being over 60? If it’s just about being over 60 and you can post about non-book topics such as the cost of apples, it’s not for me and I’ve unfortunately flagged two messages in error and for this I apologize.

But I would also object to the group itself, because if it’s not about books or reading material, I find it
A - unnecessary. There are plenty of sm sites for older people, catering for older-person interests.

B - I find the existence of the group patronizing. We over 60s are still people. Should Ian McEwan be a typical member for this group? Would we invite him? Obviously not.

I joined believing it could be relevant as I’m well over 60. I thought attitudes to literature have changed and there may be many areas of interest. If I want to tell the community the brand of a fridge I bought in 1960 I would go to Facebook.

Of course joining this group is not mandatory and I’ve unjoined. But broadening the groups to non -book groups changes the look and feel of LT and I would just like to know what are valid posts.

People over 60 still read books. We are not by definition too old to be able to write about books or have opinions. If age is a consideration, why not groups for the different generations?

It might seem what’s the harm about a post about the price of groceries, but having such posts makes one feel posting about a book issue would be inappropriate. A group discussing old cars and the price of spuds doesn’t encourage participation by a 61 year old. And are not 30 year old interested in the cost of living?

I’ve rambled on too much, but I wanted to make all my points.

Thank you for listening.

>17 kjuliff:

I would also object to the group itself, because if it’s not about books or reading material, I find it A - unnecessary.

There are a great many groups on LT that are not about books and reading material.

There's a group about Tea: https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/96/Tea%21, there are groups for particular geographical locations: https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/141/Chicagoans, there are groups for lawyers, about chocolate, about opera, etiquette and manners, and all sorts of non-books groups.

>18 lilithcat: oh I didn’t know about those other groups. Thanks for telling me. I did see one for different geographic locations but assumed it was about books in that area.

>17 kjuliff: I would love more book discussions and have tried several times to steer discussions that way. However, it's obvious by the conversations that is not where this group wishes to head at this time! I feel the group is for the members, so we go with the flow! I feel the group is just a catch-all for those 60 or over, and that is fine with me.

I would also welcome Ian McEwan to the group! I'm not sure what that comment was all about, but I know dozens of people over 60 who have read McEwan's books!

Sorry you do not find it appealing.

P.S. LT also has gardening, cooking, birding, and classical music groups!

I think for many of us LT has become a form of social media, an online community if you like, which seems more civil and less fraught than many of the more widely known ones. It's the only one I engage with regularly, apart from a couple of specialist railway groups. It's a chance to interact with literate people who are interested in books, but the interactions are not limited to the books and cover a wide range of topics. The "readers over sixty" group is a platform for conversations with readers of our own generation and is an interesting opportunity to converse about things we share in common, but also to learn from the diversity of cultures from which we hail. And naturally, LT also has a railway group!

>20 Tess_W: see my post >19 kjuliff:. I was unaware when I first posted in this group that it encompassed topics other than books. I did apologize when it was explained to me.

>21 John5918: Thanks, I will certainly look into those other groups. I just didn’t know about them or understand about the purpose of this one.