That dark thread.........

[Alan Medic]

....with over 5,000 views, has been moved to the 'about the forum' section. In case you're interested.

[StraferJack]

should have been there from day one, no?

there is a section called "about the forum"

UDT starts a thread "about the forum" so.....

[Alan Medic]

If it's UDT why has he not been shown the door?

[StraferJack]

Udt is my opinion.

Historically admin has taken a "lets see" approach with returning sinners. But given the response times admin is able to provide these days, who knows

[red devil]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But given the response times admin is able to provide these days, who knows

More Gov't cutbacks?..

[Otta]

To be fair, it was started in good faith by a genuine poster (I think) bwdore being hijacked.

[StraferJack]

Good point

Shame he didn't really follow up on that op

[Jeremy]

I gotta take a share of the blame for the way the thread turned out... but hopefully it will die a death now its been moved.

[unlurked]

Why should it die a death? Because it made a certain set of posters defensive and uncomfortable? Maybe that was/is the point. Self reflection can be a good thing. We don't always need buoying up, support and validation to know we're right.

[StraferJack]

Who is defensive and uncomfortable? Who?

[Otta]

If I say "yeah I'd like to know to", is that ganging up?

I would like to know though.

[????]

Personally, I thought "people" did gang up on UDT and felt it was cliquey...genuinely

[Otta]

I felt at the time like I couldn't say anything on any thread without UDT trying to pick a row with me. I disliked him and I occasionally took the piss because he invited it.

I never intentionally tried to gang up though.

[Otta]

And I think he was just rude to so many people that Iols of them couldn't resist the occasional pop.

Sometimes you do reap what you sow.

[????]

Maybe, but still felt he was ganged up on.....post not poster didn,t apply to him much

[numbers]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally, I thought "people" did gang up on UDT

> and felt it was cliquey...genuinely

seriously quids?

fair enough if that's your impression but... look back at the poster in question: the prevailing attitude was one of 'superiority' towards the majority of posters on this forum (whether they be regulars, 'cliquers', infrequent posters, one-offs or not). It was quite often, disingenuous and dishonest too.

First time I plucked up the courage to post on here, I was taken to task by one of the moderators who didn't happen to share my view. But you know, you move on, you don't call 'clique' and....you might find you can respect people's differing viewpoints, even those that *shock horror* may be diametrically opposed to yours.

Something, I'm afraid, certain posters could not.

[El Pibe]

There was no ganging up, there was no cooperation involved. He treated everyone equally high handedly whilst being self righteous and pompous.

Lots of people saying "seriously, stop being car crashingly embarrassing to read" is not ganging up or bullying.

[????]

Post not poster...

...didn.t really ring true with him, by the end many were just piling in on him on any thread. Didn,t like it then as I posted at the time...

It was safety in numbers stuff in my opinion and has happened to a few others too...TLS for eg

[numbers]

dunno about TLS as before my time but who on here genuinely likes 'piling in' using 'for safety in numbers' as a reason for that? I'd like to think people don't need to do that.

don't get what you mean by 'post not poster'. calling forumites a 'don't know any better' or 'nasty piece of work' etc and talking down to them didn't endear them to many, absolutely no co-operation involved in individuals' response to that.

(that's the ones that were 'brave' enough to respond, others may have been put off, more's the pity).

[unlurked]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who is defensive and uncomfortable? Who?

It was a question, a maybe, a possibility, an alternative explanation, a thought

[Jeremy]

Yeah I think with UDT it was a case of his posts being so outrageous that there was only a small set of possible responses. TLS... actually I did side with him occasionally, but always wished I hadn't.

[Otta]

Was a while ago, but I don't think I ever had a problem with TLS, or SteveT for that matter. Didn't agree with some of their outdated world views, but didn't think they were queuing up ro join the BNP either.

[edcam]

UDT was extremely unpleasant at times and the forum's a better place without him.

[El Pibe]

Agreed, though it is a bit duller in fairness.

[Otta]

Haha, yep, you always miss them when they're gone.