Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When you're a delusional narcissist, a thread devoted to simply quoting your own brilliance back at you - whilst simultaneously securing yourself a greater audience - will only really be seen and taken as a compliment..


If I'm wrong, of course, UDT is more than welcome to 'report his own posts as ridiculous' (is there a button for that?) and the whole thing can duly disappear.

It smacks of 'let's all pile in', safety in numbers etc... A whole thread devoted to this simply isn't necessary. From what I hear school kids now set up Facebook pages titled 'Fred Bloggs is a prick'. Fred mightn't be the most popular in class and might act like an idiot at times but he doesn't deserve that.

unless Fred Bloggs IS.. y'know...


Forget this thread for a moment and go read the various threads UDT plays a part in - he/she is clearly upsetting a lot of people, it's obvious to anyone reading them (not saying I always disagree with him/her either btw)


Compared to the vitriol on those threads, this particular one is almost affectionate


Also, with facebook you can see who Fred Bloggs is and he becomes a target. UDT is ensconsed safely in anonymity so no-one can "bully" them in real life.

UDt could say "hey hold off guys - it's a bit much" - to which one could reasonably expect UDT to hold back a little bit on his general posting style - but he/she seems to relish the attention it causes


so no, I can't see the bullying here

I think playground bullying is where the troubled externalise their problems by taking it out on the weak and defenceless.


This to me looks like the natural inclination of people upon seeing someone persistently shouting "I'm brilliant and better than you" to (fruitlessly) get them to take themselves a little less seriously.

atticus - you aren't realy addressing my points


Being bullied needs an imbalance of power - go read UDT's threads and the people upset by him/her - I don't see any imbalance of power


It's the sheer number and content of their posts which has triggered this thread (which, as I say, seems almost affectionate compared to the threads UDT is actually involved in)


But I'm open to being convinced otherwise - I wouldn't want to be part of bullying anyone

UDT, it would appear is no shrinking violet. He might even enjoy being the centre of attention. Despite this, I still perceive this thread as bullying in nature, albeit school-yard and not intrinsically malicious (I hope). What next the dreaded 'B' word, banter???

therein lies the rub Atticus - you wouldn't be comfortable, and you have said so


Equally you have enough nous to read what you have read and see that it isn't all gold


ergo, it's highly unlikely anyone is going to start a thread about you, because you aren't acting like an eejit


But UDT is very aggressive in his/her general tone - he/she is an aggressor, not a victim


bringing up "banter" is interesting, recalling as it does Keys and Gray. They too claimed they were bullied and victimised after being sacked, but it was their own behaviour wot done it

I agree with Atticus. I remember having, or trying to have, this discussion with StraferJack before and getting nowhere, I think because you couldn't see that with bullying it's not just your own intentions that count: it's also about how other people perceive what you're doing, and not just the person who's the target.


In particular there's a lot of bullying masquerading as banter, but the fact you're 'just' having fun doesn't make it OK. There's a history of people using the Lounge to abuse other people on a personal level and gang up on them, and there are others who either have poor social skills or use the relative anonymity of the forum to be totally inconsiderate in how they express themselves - whenever I meet new people in ED and the forum comes up someone always mentions it, and there are forumites who don't use the Lounge for that reason. Personally after the last couple of days I'm now heading for the door (again).

A pointless knotting of knickers.


To see this thread in any sort of malevolent light is is to completely misunderstand the dynamic that exists between UDT and.. A lot of our people. He's ON this thread, contributing to it, and ENJOYING it. Everyone's a winner. Unless you're steadfastly determined to be offended on someone else's behalf - when in fact they're more than happy to play.


Perhaps UDT is to be the last truly interesting thing about this place. Now there's a thought.

The rub is that noone feels the slighest urge to create one about you atticus.


The participants in this thread are long-standing members of the forum and have a long track record of being reasonalbe, thoughtful, measured and friendly.


Yeah there can be clashes and I guess a slightly acerbic sense of humour dominates but compared to many forums I've encountered this strikes a terrific balance between being welcoming and tolerant whilst generally avoiding being dull.


The fact that it has come to this, and that this is the only example of such in almost exactly 7 years of this forum (oh dear god has it been that long) and that the poster in question has been dealt with more harshly on other forums (it took him less than a week to get put on close moderation here after joining specifically to carry on an intractable argument on here with another poster and was banned from this one) should speak volumes.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...