Who do you think is in The Clique?

[????]

Was that before or after the great Stalinist purge? My memory Isn,t what it was since Siberia

[Robert Poste's Child]

Louisa, 2011-12 was about the time I left, funnily enough!

(Edited as posted too quickly...)

[Sue]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> On the subject of Sue, the thread I was thinking

> about was in reference to paranormal events I

> think. I'd be interested if Sue could join in here

> and clarify if how I perceived reactions to her

> posts at the time, were taken to heart by her or

> whether it was just forum banter. Sometimes the

> line between banter and clique is a fine one.

>

I don't recall exactly what was said on that thread, but I have a vague recollection of just feeling "oh I can't be arsed continuing with this" and stopping posting on it. I'm pretty sure I didn't "back down", as you said in a previous post above. Perish the thought!

However, on other threads I have sometimes felt like I was being verbally attacked by the forum equivalent of a gang of playground bullies. (ETA: However, to the best of my knowledge I have never accused anybody of bullying me on the thread itself. I can imagine what would have been the reaction to that.)

On another point above, I am pretty sure that DJKQ and Pokertime were/are the same person, not least because DJKQ used to run a poker evening, and possibly still does. Also the content and style of their posts were very similar (though I have to say I wouldn't have picked this up if somebody hadn't pointed it out to me).

DJKQ also posted as Angetastic until she was outed, when she attempted (unsuccessfully) to delete all evidence of her Angetastic incarnation.

Oh, and my first attempt at writing this post completely disappeared into the ether - the whole page just disappeared and never came back - spooky, eh?! :))

ETA: Louisa, you asked where was my response - I have been out most of the day and a large part of the evening, and frankly reading this thread was the last thing on my mind ....

[KalamityKel]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Worth mentioning perhaps that the reactions of

> longstanding forumites can also put off other

> longstanding, if less prolific, forumites, not

> just newbies. I originally joined late 2007 /

> early 2008 (can't remember any more) and

> eventually gave it up when the banter kept tipping

> over into something nastier - I know it's not just

> me as I've met other people locally who avoid the

> Lounge for that reason. After a year or two the

> forum started to calm down a bit and that's when I

> decided to give it another try.

>

> I met a few people at a forum drinks in 2008 and

> they seemed nice. I went again a few years later

> and it felt completely different so I'm afraid I

> haven't bothered since. Virtual world is fine,

> though.

I agree slightly with this... a while back, with an influx of newer (now older) posters started to contribute in a rather dominating way, many of whom have given up the EDF addiction, the flavour of the EDF changed a little - even forum meets changed from incredibly friendly and relaxed to something which resembled of competition (in my experience and not referring to any who still participate on here now) of who was more popular/loudest/wildest. I know change is something people tend not to like but in this instance I personally felt it a struggle to engage further on the forum and lost interest.

I am glad some "normality" has returned now although I'm still lost on much of the conversation - I think I'm just stupid :-))

[El Pibe]

yeah there was definitely a sense from a slew of then new posters that the old order would be swept away.

It ranged from a garrulous swamping of conversation, via crass sex talk, through passive aggressive to outright aggressive.

And alot of the originals, who were responsible for the success the EDF, ended up shying away or retiring completely.

I stopped moderating as I was constantly being told that I couldn't have an opinion as one, and so i stopped and the remaining EDFers jobs became harder as a result.

The drinks suffered from the same erosion.

Luckily the deluge eventually ebbed, either through bannings of the worst or lost interest. The nicer ones stayed and marvellous new posters arrived and things got better. It was difficult to maintain an interest in those days, but those that did remain it was probably a combination of stubborness and Facebook not having been invented yet ;)

Though as Otta says, you rarely get a conversation there, at least between more than two or three, and they are necessarily self selecting participants.

For all the accusations then, and still, chucked about that the leftisit clique attack any who challenge their world view, i think has it back utterly backwards. Good threads ONLY come about by heterogenous views, not monolithic ones.

Anyway, apologies for the serious post, back to sectsy banter, though you do become a bit more unitarian after marriage and kids ;)

[LadyDeliah]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> The Lounge has certainly changed in the years I've

> been on the forum. Back in the day with fewer

> users and a close knit online community the clique

> controlled every section of the forum (including

> General issues and gossip), but in a way that was

> kind of ok because we all knew where we stood. As

> the forum expanded and the clique lost its grip,

> they retreated to the safety of the Lounge where

> they at one stage had a monopoly. New members and

> people like me rarely posted in here because we

> were not made welcome. For a period in around

> 2011/12 this section of the forum was almost an

> unofficial private members club. A thread such as

> this would not have been welcome. No way.

>

> Louisa.

Louisa, are you aware of how paranoid you sound in this post?

And for what it's worth, I don't think there are cliques, I think there are people who put forward unpopular views but then can't handle it when they are challenged by more than one poster at a time.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I do not recognise Louisa's description of that period. Louisa does tend to post views that some old hands regularly jump on. That may be part of it.

[Sue]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> And for what it's worth, I don't think there are

> cliques, I think there are people who put forward

> unpopular views but then can't handle it when they

> are challenged by more than one poster at a time.

There are ways and ways of "challenging" people with "unpopular" views.(I assume by "unpopular" you mean differing to the views of some vocal forum posters).

There is putting your case objectively based on facts you can provide.

And then there is personal attack based on what sometimes comes across as just based on nothing very much at all.

It also seems that a specific person putting forward a particular viewpoint may be "challenged" by several people, but when another person posts what would appear to be confirmation of that viewpoint, they aren't challenged, and in fact there may be a resounding silence. The SMBS thread was one thread in which that happened.

Not sure what you mean by "can't handle it". Not sure how one is supposed to "handle" going round in circles with people who deliberately or not cannot seem to respond straightly or logically to points made, and again in some cases resort to personal attack. One of the McCann threads was one of those. And one of the most offensive and personal posts was by somebody who I now know to have been a mod.

[El Pibe]

Paranormal thread you did all the name calling in the face of simple requests for facts*, so delicious irony there.

In the mcann thread, yes it was me, it was a humourous parody of your obssesive inability to let go of the figurative bone long after you'd been politiely advised, by about 50 posters, that it was painful reading and please let it drop.

Again, it's all about perception isn't it.

Offence is such a meaningless word these days and should be the start of debate, not a means to shut it down.

*still waiting....

[Otta]

A while back it felt as though the whole forum (Lounge and General) had been taken over by the Cyclist clique and the We hate cyclists clique.

[Sue]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Paranormal thread you did all the name calling in

> the face of simple requests for facts*, so

> delicious irony there.

>

> In the mcann thread, yes it was me, it was a

> humourous parody of your obssesive inability to

> let go of the figurative bone long after you'd

> been politiely advised, by about 50 posters, that

> it was painful reading and please let it drop.

>

> Again, it's all about perception isn't it.

>

> Offence is such a meaningless word these days and

> should be the start of debate, not a means to shut

> it down.

>

> *still waiting....

What name calling did I do? Examples please.

And what facts are you waiting for? Examples please.

And perhaps you'd like to post your "humorous parody" here so that we can all decide whether it was "humorous" or, as I (and my partner) found it, extremely offensive. In fact probably the most offensive and personal post I've ever read on this forum.

And who were these "about 50" posters exactly?

Edited for spelling.

ETA: I've got other things to do now, so don't take my immediate lack of response to whatever your answers are to the above as meaning I'm not going to reply. Anyway, I guess it will take you a while to find those answers ......

[El Pibe]

wow, thread gone. I guess even admin thought it too painful.

ok, maybe insult was too strong a word, being told to 'learn some elementary logic' was personal though.

and this is STILL making me chuckle

"Eh? If they're "explicable", then they aren't "unexplained", are they? Duh!" rather undermining the ad hominem....

but talking of undermining, lets not turn another thread into a sue rumble in the jungle, lets leave this to nice reminiscences.

you can update the evidence in that other thread!!

[Otta]

Sue Wrote:

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

> so don't take my immediate lack of response to whatever

> your answers are to the above as meaning I'm not going to reply.

I don't think anyone would for a second assume that you won't reply Sue ;-)

[StraferJack]

whihc thread gone? Edited to Add - ah teh McCann one

when Dulwich B&B came in on the SMBS thread I had given up and heeded the advice several people gave me to stop

DB&B sounded confused more than accusatory and had I engaged with her (as Sue did) it would have been prolonging the thing

[El Pibe]

.

dotted by request.

Sue an apology of sorts was offered, though i still don't think it remotely offensive if you read it in context.

transcript available on request.

[Otta]

I laughed. But possibly because I know you and could "hear" the humour in the words.

[david_carnell]

I laughed but, you know, clique privilege and all that.

[steveo]

.

[maxxi]

the redaction clique strikes agxxn, I blame Xxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxx

'

'

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

Edited whenever and however many times it may be necessary.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Glad to see you removed your posts, both the offensive original and the schoolboy sniggering and egging-on that followed. They neatly brought this thread full circle by demonstrating that the attitude some people have mentioned is still alive and well, which is a pity when you could have used the thread to build bridges.

It's not lost on me either that there is a massive dichotomy between your PC as-a-husband-and-father posts on the Ched Evans thread and you gleefully turning the death of a real person into a sleazily sexual slur in order to shame and ridicule a forumite you don't agree with. That really is pretty low. Reminds me why I left the forum.

[maxxi]

Having not seen the post in question it seems rich to approve the removal of the post and then to detail its content by accusing the poster of "gleefully turning the death of a real person into a sleazily sexual slur in order to shame and ridicule a forumite" which can't possibly be defended unless the post is re-issued with explanations. Unless you just mean to stir it.

[ernesto]

this is how it goes, cliques split, factions, outcasts, demise. a post split cadre of two is no longer a clique but an anachronism, probably dreaming of a waitrose lite, whislt feeding their cats each evening

[Robert Poste's Child]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Having not seen the post in question it seems rich

> to approve the removal of the post and then to

> detail its content by accusing the poster of

> "gleefully turning the death of a real person into

> a sleazily sexual slur in order to shame and

> ridicule a forumite" which can't possibly be

> defended unless the post is re-issued with

> explanations. Unless you just mean to stir it.

I don't think it should be brushed away without comment. Not even sure I would accept a moderator's viewpoint on this one given it involves sometime moderator(s) doing as they like for their own amusement, or at least that's how I feel right now - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Pretty disgusted, really.

[Blah Blah]

This is where it all gets messy. Old debates dragged up, old conflicts, grudges resurface, and most of us have no idea what anyone is talking about. Isn't it better to let sleeping dogs lie?

Btw Otta, I do apologise, You are right, I didn't read your post properly and reacted stupidly.

[Jeremy]

EP offending Sue (I for one think he overstepped the mark) is not the same as some sort of coordinated forum in-crowd sticking together.