Cliquey
- Thread starter dr_mabeuse
- Start date
Just_John1
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 294
DVS said:
Fender or Gibson... can't we all just get along? LOL Never could make a Fender sound good. Takes too much skill.
DVS
A ghost from your dreams
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 11,416
I've always loved the sound of a Les Paul. I guess I'm a bit partial.Just_John1 said:
You do know the story of Les Paul and Mary Ford? Because I've been into recording for over 40 years, I always love the pioneers.
It seems perhaps MG knows the story.
Just_John1
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 294
Never heard that one...
but I'm interested...
but I'm interested...
G
Guest
Guest
DVS & MG re. LP & MF
I know it too, been listening to music (from A to Z naturally) for more than 40 years. Tell it, DVS, please.
JJ1: I'm w/Earl re. your posts.
Perdita
I know it too, been listening to music (from A to Z naturally) for more than 40 years. Tell it, DVS, please.
JJ1: I'm w/Earl re. your posts.
Perdita
DVS
A ghost from your dreams
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 11,416
Re: Never heard that one...
Well, this is just a condensed version, but he along with Mary, were very much inovators of not just guitars but multitrack recordings and overdubs, before anyone.
If you listen to any of their 78s, all guitars are overdubed by Les and all singing is Mary. Keep in mind, this early work was before any multitrack recordings were possible.
The Beatles were recording inovators too, but Les Paul was the true pioneer before them. And, with Les' tinkering with guitars and such, guitarists have been given one of the better sounding instruments, I think.
Below, is a better story than I could tell, and even it doesn't tell the whole story. Search the web, and you may even find a picture of his "Log" guitar. One amazing individual, that Les Paul.
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/1999/07/08/paul/index.html
I added a pic of his log guitar that is at the Smithsonian Institute.
www.si.edu/i+d/images/leslog.gif
Oh, and sorry! I now relinquish the thread!
Just_John1 said:
Well, this is just a condensed version, but he along with Mary, were very much inovators of not just guitars but multitrack recordings and overdubs, before anyone.
If you listen to any of their 78s, all guitars are overdubed by Les and all singing is Mary. Keep in mind, this early work was before any multitrack recordings were possible.
The Beatles were recording inovators too, but Les Paul was the true pioneer before them. And, with Les' tinkering with guitars and such, guitarists have been given one of the better sounding instruments, I think.
Below, is a better story than I could tell, and even it doesn't tell the whole story. Search the web, and you may even find a picture of his "Log" guitar. One amazing individual, that Les Paul.
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/1999/07/08/paul/index.html
I added a pic of his log guitar that is at the Smithsonian Institute.
www.si.edu/i+d/images/leslog.gif
Oh, and sorry! I now relinquish the thread!
Last edited:
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Field guide to the common online clique...
I think the Dr. made a very valid- not to mention brave- pronouncement at the start of this thread. Most people wouldn't dare to question the behavior of a group they are part of- for fear of social excommunication. Swimming against the tide of falling lemmings can be watery social suicide- and who wants to deal with that, when one is safe and warm in the bosom of the accepted coterie? Good fucking job, Dr. Your motivations are obviously not dictated by the collective.
At the outset of this thread, the aforementioned coterie "red-herringed", Republican-style, to avoid a direct conflict with their friend- i.e. "Surely you don't mean that friends are a bad thing, mon dieu, c'est incroyable, quel horreur!" This was the accepted way of giving him a graceful "out"- and not addressing the issue. Incredibly, Dr. clarified his viewpoint so that it was no longer vague enough to dismiss or avoid, and posters either talked about fucking fairies and other arbitrary matters to dispell their tension, or, began a sly process of censure- i.e. "I'm sorry you feel that way, but of course you can have your opinions [read: of course you can, but I won't like you anymore]". Witness the oh so masterfully subtle boarding-school slam on Perdita's sign-off: "cordially, Perdita". No more "hugs", no more quips- you've crossed the line, Dr! It's right out of an E.M. Forster novel- the ultimate Gibson-girl freezing-of-politeness social censure tool. How ludicrous.
While I often wanted to, I had already decided never to post, having observed a pattern of self-congratulatory exclusion among many of the primary participants. It seems they only deign to respond to outside contributors if those individuals come on bended knee- "oh, please- I can't use commas without wretching" or "this is my first story, what do you think, you lofty deities of the written word, passing judgement incognito in the sheltering arms of the internet". If you don't sidle up and verbally massage an ego or two, they are incommunicado.
I've watched this forum for awhile since my first story posted to Lit. It seemed like a great idea- and this forum is great when it deals with actual topics- there are a shitload of literate and interesting people on here. Chicklet is adorable (like that nice popular girl in school), and I enjoy all of your insights- obviously enough that I keep reading it. What sucks ass through a coffee straw is all the circle jerking, the laudatory birdwalking. And, as in the plagiarism thread, the frothy, fevered plunge to the cliff's edge. Maybe the chick was wrong, maybe she was right- but wow, didn't people rally against her- Salem style, when the accused was one of their own. I guess I just expect more individuality and self esteem from a group of people who identify as authors.
So now you've met me, coterie- let this be an experiment. Are you a clique? Am I a barbaric, "unhuggable" bitch? I think we might have got on, but now I've gone and told you what I really think. And that doesn't bode well. Ever.
mlle
I think the Dr. made a very valid- not to mention brave- pronouncement at the start of this thread. Most people wouldn't dare to question the behavior of a group they are part of- for fear of social excommunication. Swimming against the tide of falling lemmings can be watery social suicide- and who wants to deal with that, when one is safe and warm in the bosom of the accepted coterie? Good fucking job, Dr. Your motivations are obviously not dictated by the collective.
At the outset of this thread, the aforementioned coterie "red-herringed", Republican-style, to avoid a direct conflict with their friend- i.e. "Surely you don't mean that friends are a bad thing, mon dieu, c'est incroyable, quel horreur!" This was the accepted way of giving him a graceful "out"- and not addressing the issue. Incredibly, Dr. clarified his viewpoint so that it was no longer vague enough to dismiss or avoid, and posters either talked about fucking fairies and other arbitrary matters to dispell their tension, or, began a sly process of censure- i.e. "I'm sorry you feel that way, but of course you can have your opinions [read: of course you can, but I won't like you anymore]". Witness the oh so masterfully subtle boarding-school slam on Perdita's sign-off: "cordially, Perdita". No more "hugs", no more quips- you've crossed the line, Dr! It's right out of an E.M. Forster novel- the ultimate Gibson-girl freezing-of-politeness social censure tool. How ludicrous.
While I often wanted to, I had already decided never to post, having observed a pattern of self-congratulatory exclusion among many of the primary participants. It seems they only deign to respond to outside contributors if those individuals come on bended knee- "oh, please- I can't use commas without wretching" or "this is my first story, what do you think, you lofty deities of the written word, passing judgement incognito in the sheltering arms of the internet". If you don't sidle up and verbally massage an ego or two, they are incommunicado.
I've watched this forum for awhile since my first story posted to Lit. It seemed like a great idea- and this forum is great when it deals with actual topics- there are a shitload of literate and interesting people on here. Chicklet is adorable (like that nice popular girl in school), and I enjoy all of your insights- obviously enough that I keep reading it. What sucks ass through a coffee straw is all the circle jerking, the laudatory birdwalking. And, as in the plagiarism thread, the frothy, fevered plunge to the cliff's edge. Maybe the chick was wrong, maybe she was right- but wow, didn't people rally against her- Salem style, when the accused was one of their own. I guess I just expect more individuality and self esteem from a group of people who identify as authors.
So now you've met me, coterie- let this be an experiment. Are you a clique? Am I a barbaric, "unhuggable" bitch? I think we might have got on, but now I've gone and told you what I really think. And that doesn't bode well. Ever.
mlle
Last edited:
pop_54
The young Aviator LOL
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Posts
- 6,893
Hmm
Interesting points MLPB, don't mind me shortening your nick I hope.
So you have been reluctant to post due to the clique, interesting first attempt though, really don't know why you felt the need to attack one person in particular though, (yes she's a friend, not a clique friend, a real one) when you have no idea of any history or lead up to any such 'boarding school sign off', (OR maybe you do?)
OK personal comments out of the way, now for some personal comments.
I agree with your summing up of the nature of a number of our fellow AH members, you don't fit in fully unless you bow and scrape to the few, or find some other method of being at least acknowledged.
As you say maybe pretend to be a bit thick so they will crowd round and help you in their efforts to be seen as superior.
Or, say something that is controversial and or bound to cause offence, see above.
Or, join the silly banter in threads, (which with my tiny mind is fun anyway).
I have made a few more posts than yourself obviously, and came to the conclusions, (see above) long ago.
Sometimes I will join the serious bit and spend 10 minutes writing a nice sensible reply, but I hate talking to myself, and apart from a couple of friends very few here will ever bother to aknowledge my replies, or that I even exist, a few other folks suffer this though so I don't feel too bad about it. (Actually amuses me sometimes the lengths people go to avoiding contact with non clique members, deliberate and obvious ingore).
I came to my conclusions a while back as I say, but I'm still here where a few of the old clique members seem to have faded away even.
Why am I still here, fuck knows, I think it all amuses me more than annoys me, I like a laugh, and I love winding the tossers up.
pops...............
Interesting points MLPB, don't mind me shortening your nick I hope.
So you have been reluctant to post due to the clique, interesting first attempt though, really don't know why you felt the need to attack one person in particular though, (yes she's a friend, not a clique friend, a real one) when you have no idea of any history or lead up to any such 'boarding school sign off', (OR maybe you do?)
OK personal comments out of the way, now for some personal comments.
I agree with your summing up of the nature of a number of our fellow AH members, you don't fit in fully unless you bow and scrape to the few, or find some other method of being at least acknowledged.
As you say maybe pretend to be a bit thick so they will crowd round and help you in their efforts to be seen as superior.
Or, say something that is controversial and or bound to cause offence, see above.
Or, join the silly banter in threads, (which with my tiny mind is fun anyway).
I have made a few more posts than yourself obviously, and came to the conclusions, (see above) long ago.
Sometimes I will join the serious bit and spend 10 minutes writing a nice sensible reply, but I hate talking to myself, and apart from a couple of friends very few here will ever bother to aknowledge my replies, or that I even exist, a few other folks suffer this though so I don't feel too bad about it. (Actually amuses me sometimes the lengths people go to avoiding contact with non clique members, deliberate and obvious ingore).
I came to my conclusions a while back as I say, but I'm still here where a few of the old clique members seem to have faded away even.
Why am I still here, fuck knows, I think it all amuses me more than annoys me, I like a laugh, and I love winding the tossers up.
pops...............
MathGirl
Cogito
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Posts
- 5,825
Clickey, clickey
Dear Pop,
With your experienced outlook on things, possibly you could clear this up for me. Are you a member of the clique that's being chastized here? Am I? I've always thought of myself as having a tendency towards anarchy. You, too.
MG
Dear Pop,
With your experienced outlook on things, possibly you could clear this up for me. Are you a member of the clique that's being chastized here? Am I? I've always thought of myself as having a tendency towards anarchy. You, too.
MG
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Mlle and Pops,
One point worth adding to the analysis; in a forum like this there is no real means of control other than ignoring or deriding, and it's more the former. Yet nothing stops Mlle from a few hundred words of critique, or anyone from replying. Why then are postings like hers so rare?
I think somehow the 'ins' have gotten inside the heads of a few, and most guests; the latter have somehow bought into the idea that what dominates the forum is somehow superior, and what is ignored, is so, deservedly.
J.
One point worth adding to the analysis; in a forum like this there is no real means of control other than ignoring or deriding, and it's more the former. Yet nothing stops Mlle from a few hundred words of critique, or anyone from replying. Why then are postings like hers so rare?
I think somehow the 'ins' have gotten inside the heads of a few, and most guests; the latter have somehow bought into the idea that what dominates the forum is somehow superior, and what is ignored, is so, deservedly.
J.
pop_54
The young Aviator LOL
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Posts
- 6,893
Re: Clickey, clickey
I'll sign you up for membership of the anarchists cookbook then dear, we need a new governor, interested??, hehe!!
Hello pure, jeez wish I could write that much in two para's, there's nothing got in my head though, not even a brain in there, hehe!!
MathGirl said:
I'll sign you up for membership of the anarchists cookbook then dear, we need a new governor, interested??, hehe!!
Hello pure, jeez wish I could write that much in two para's, there's nothing got in my head though, not even a brain in there, hehe!!
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Hey pops-
I appreciate your candor, and of course, your not ripping me a new one. Actually, ironically- you are one of my favorite posters. I love the piracy . Arrgh. (naturally, I'm covering one eye as I write that)...
However, I take exception to the idea that I "attacked" anyone. I am a steadfast devotee of the principle that people do not deserve to be attacked- only their actions, which is what I belive I did. I certainly can't attack Perdita herself- I have have gathered from her posts that she is exceedingly intelligent, insightful, and gracious to those in her entourage. I love reading her "real" posts- the woman is bright, bright, bright. No, I don't "know" her. I don't think that exempts me from forming (or expressing) personal conclusions regarding her conduct. I have no knowledge of any past history- the plain truth is that how she reacted in that moment perfectly illustrated what I meant to convey- and without examples, any argument is so much hearsay. I certainly could have made other examples, but that would have come off as mean-spirited overkill, and I'd have been lambasted for that. Was Perdita's cool re-buff justified? Maybe. Maybe Dr. Mabreuse is a huge, flaccid, flapping dick, and I just don't know it. I don't know anything about their history, but when you post to a public board you run the risk of people's general ignorance of such things, and possible erroneous conclusions drawn.
There also seems to be a tendency to always suspect new posters of some kind of publicity espionage- plagiarism? Yeah, right- you just want views! (and maybe that was the case with Michelle). In my case, you suggested I wrote something deliberately sensational to get a rise, and that kind of irked me for a moment, until I thought about it. Yes, that would be one way to get a response- but not a positive one. I fully expected to be keel-hauled, hooked-and-hauled, put in the scupper and wet all over. If you'll notice, that was my first post- ever. Surely I could have made a better initial impression. Surely anything else would have been infinitely more charming than what I said. If being noticed was my angle, I would have at least tried a different approach before taking a drastic one like that.
The truth is, after reading a lot of posts from a lot of people from a purely non-active vantage, I got annoyed at how people treated the Dr.'s opinion. So the straw broke, and I spilled a lot of pointless verbiage to exorcise my bile.
Anyway, Pops, you are swell- always mild-mannered and pithy. Sorry if I hurt your feelings when I cited Perdita.
I feel galactically stupid for writing this much about such a maudlin subject as the interpolitical machinations of a chat board. Still, I couldn't leave it alone.
I appreciate your candor, and of course, your not ripping me a new one. Actually, ironically- you are one of my favorite posters. I love the piracy . Arrgh. (naturally, I'm covering one eye as I write that)...
However, I take exception to the idea that I "attacked" anyone. I am a steadfast devotee of the principle that people do not deserve to be attacked- only their actions, which is what I belive I did. I certainly can't attack Perdita herself- I have have gathered from her posts that she is exceedingly intelligent, insightful, and gracious to those in her entourage. I love reading her "real" posts- the woman is bright, bright, bright. No, I don't "know" her. I don't think that exempts me from forming (or expressing) personal conclusions regarding her conduct. I have no knowledge of any past history- the plain truth is that how she reacted in that moment perfectly illustrated what I meant to convey- and without examples, any argument is so much hearsay. I certainly could have made other examples, but that would have come off as mean-spirited overkill, and I'd have been lambasted for that. Was Perdita's cool re-buff justified? Maybe. Maybe Dr. Mabreuse is a huge, flaccid, flapping dick, and I just don't know it. I don't know anything about their history, but when you post to a public board you run the risk of people's general ignorance of such things, and possible erroneous conclusions drawn.
There also seems to be a tendency to always suspect new posters of some kind of publicity espionage- plagiarism? Yeah, right- you just want views! (and maybe that was the case with Michelle). In my case, you suggested I wrote something deliberately sensational to get a rise, and that kind of irked me for a moment, until I thought about it. Yes, that would be one way to get a response- but not a positive one. I fully expected to be keel-hauled, hooked-and-hauled, put in the scupper and wet all over. If you'll notice, that was my first post- ever. Surely I could have made a better initial impression. Surely anything else would have been infinitely more charming than what I said. If being noticed was my angle, I would have at least tried a different approach before taking a drastic one like that.
The truth is, after reading a lot of posts from a lot of people from a purely non-active vantage, I got annoyed at how people treated the Dr.'s opinion. So the straw broke, and I spilled a lot of pointless verbiage to exorcise my bile.
Anyway, Pops, you are swell- always mild-mannered and pithy. Sorry if I hurt your feelings when I cited Perdita.
I feel galactically stupid for writing this much about such a maudlin subject as the interpolitical machinations of a chat board. Still, I couldn't leave it alone.
Last edited:
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
It all sounds like crying to me.
The Doc was struck by cliquery and then corrected himself and said he was fed up with the inanities of a few. Fair point.
I've already overstayed my usual interest time in anything netwise (usually about 9 months) but the rest of it is interesting enough to keep me returning.
I'm sure the Doc already knows this and like Muffie will often post things to provoke discussion, but I'll just say it loud anyway.
Meeting with any group of people will always mean adjustment by both sides. You will inevitably wear a null persona on joining any group until you know a little more about what is acceptable to that group or what is acceptable from you.
If you jump in feet first with criticism or bawdy language or sexism or any other obvious ism then you run the risk of not being acceptable.
You may have a motive for the above, like wanting to be acceptable to the opposite clique. To become one of 'them'.
The most interesting thing to me is that 'lady of the blue pen' whilst giving a sound thrashing to the cliques with erudition and verve (and unfortunately naming names) to all intents and purposes siding with the Doc's opening (unmodified) post then finishes with, to paraphrase; "Well can I be in your gang?"
Gauche
P.S the answer is yes as long as you're not a stuck up sticky beak.(always assuming that I'm a part of the thrashed clique in question)
The Doc was struck by cliquery and then corrected himself and said he was fed up with the inanities of a few. Fair point.
I've already overstayed my usual interest time in anything netwise (usually about 9 months) but the rest of it is interesting enough to keep me returning.
I'm sure the Doc already knows this and like Muffie will often post things to provoke discussion, but I'll just say it loud anyway.
Meeting with any group of people will always mean adjustment by both sides. You will inevitably wear a null persona on joining any group until you know a little more about what is acceptable to that group or what is acceptable from you.
If you jump in feet first with criticism or bawdy language or sexism or any other obvious ism then you run the risk of not being acceptable.
You may have a motive for the above, like wanting to be acceptable to the opposite clique. To become one of 'them'.
The most interesting thing to me is that 'lady of the blue pen' whilst giving a sound thrashing to the cliques with erudition and verve (and unfortunately naming names) to all intents and purposes siding with the Doc's opening (unmodified) post then finishes with, to paraphrase; "Well can I be in your gang?"
Gauche
P.S the answer is yes as long as you're not a stuck up sticky beak.(always assuming that I'm a part of the thrashed clique in question)
MathGirl
Cogito
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Posts
- 5,825
That plagarism thing
Dear Ms Blue Pen,
Please don't think that the plagarism argument was indicative of what usually goes on around here. Personally, I had never heard of either the accuser or the accusee, and I'm here quite a bit.
As far as I was concerned, the plagarism issue was sort of an anomaly. I'd never seen anything like that before in the months I've been coming here.
Glad to have you here. Please feel free to join the clique or not. Maybe someday I'll be told whether I belong.
MG
Dear Ms Blue Pen,
Please don't think that the plagarism argument was indicative of what usually goes on around here. Personally, I had never heard of either the accuser or the accusee, and I'm here quite a bit.
As far as I was concerned, the plagarism issue was sort of an anomaly. I'd never seen anything like that before in the months I've been coming here.
Glad to have you here. Please feel free to join the clique or not. Maybe someday I'll be told whether I belong.
MG
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Re: That plagarism thing
Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you.
Gauche
MathGirl said:
Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you.
Gauche
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
I don't know about anyone else, but I devote at least two hours a day planning, plotting, and PMing others about whom we are going to turn into an author's hangout social pariah. Sometimes, I even devote three hours. Okay, enough ha ha.
There is a simple fact of biology that we're pretty much stuck with. We are human beings and we can't escape that. Humans are herd animals. We move in groups. If we were wolves, we'd call the cliques "packs". If we were whales, we'd call the cliques "pods". I don't believe that cliques are necessarily evil anymore than I believe they are necessarily good.
People group up through mutual interest and familiarity. Sometimes that puts others on the fringe or the outside. Sometimes it doesn't. To assign intent to group behavior is actually a little silly since groups don't really think about what they're doing until they've done it. Is it wrong to do so? There's more strong arguments that it is wrong than there are arguments that it's not. Is is premeditated? No.
The hangout is cliquey like every single other human gathering place. If you don't think the place you hang out has cliques, it's probably because you're in a clique.
The thing is to be aware of our behavior in a responsible manner. If we are aware that we practice social sanctions against others in order to establish a stronger role within the group, we can act to stop such things. It has to be on a personal level, however. You can't legislate responsibility. That's another downside to being human. There are lots of congratualtions for trouncing others outside of the group.
Cliques aren't wrong for existing. Neither are they wrong for not accepting everyone with the same level of friendliness. Humans are nothing if not completely non-egalitarian. It's irrational to expect us to "like" everyone or to enjoy conversing with everyone who comes through here.
Also, consider that rebuking cliques and clique-members for practicing negative social sanctions against newcomers or fringe people is, in itself, a negative social sanctions designed to change another person. Is this not hypocrisy?
I'm in a clique. I'm in several cliques. My relationships with people on the forums shift in time and in location. Just like everyone elses. Dissolution of cliques will never happen until we break the biological bond that ties us to instinct.
Um, yeah, Muffie is into sociology.
There is a simple fact of biology that we're pretty much stuck with. We are human beings and we can't escape that. Humans are herd animals. We move in groups. If we were wolves, we'd call the cliques "packs". If we were whales, we'd call the cliques "pods". I don't believe that cliques are necessarily evil anymore than I believe they are necessarily good.
People group up through mutual interest and familiarity. Sometimes that puts others on the fringe or the outside. Sometimes it doesn't. To assign intent to group behavior is actually a little silly since groups don't really think about what they're doing until they've done it. Is it wrong to do so? There's more strong arguments that it is wrong than there are arguments that it's not. Is is premeditated? No.
The hangout is cliquey like every single other human gathering place. If you don't think the place you hang out has cliques, it's probably because you're in a clique.
The thing is to be aware of our behavior in a responsible manner. If we are aware that we practice social sanctions against others in order to establish a stronger role within the group, we can act to stop such things. It has to be on a personal level, however. You can't legislate responsibility. That's another downside to being human. There are lots of congratualtions for trouncing others outside of the group.
Cliques aren't wrong for existing. Neither are they wrong for not accepting everyone with the same level of friendliness. Humans are nothing if not completely non-egalitarian. It's irrational to expect us to "like" everyone or to enjoy conversing with everyone who comes through here.
Also, consider that rebuking cliques and clique-members for practicing negative social sanctions against newcomers or fringe people is, in itself, a negative social sanctions designed to change another person. Is this not hypocrisy?
I'm in a clique. I'm in several cliques. My relationships with people on the forums shift in time and in location. Just like everyone elses. Dissolution of cliques will never happen until we break the biological bond that ties us to instinct.
Um, yeah, Muffie is into sociology.
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Ok, no. No, I won't accept that. It's a bit cheap, I think, to imply that I was bucking for inclusion because I added that I would have liked to get to know the people on the boards.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Too late Blue, however much I hate being called cheap, you're officially 'in'. With me any way.
Show of hands please.
Gauche
Show of hands please.
Gauche
pop_54
The young Aviator LOL
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Posts
- 6,893
Hmm
You must think me a bit of an ignorant clique'ite, sorry dear I never said welcome to the madhouse last time, "welcome to the madhouse". hehe!!
Thank you for the few kind words as well, and watch the parrot he bites. As for keel hauling etc, not my style normally, (of course if you like that sort of thing, hehe!!), see you about more we hope.
pops........
MlledeLaPlumeBleu said:
You must think me a bit of an ignorant clique'ite, sorry dear I never said welcome to the madhouse last time, "welcome to the madhouse". hehe!!
Thank you for the few kind words as well, and watch the parrot he bites. As for keel hauling etc, not my style normally, (of course if you like that sort of thing, hehe!!), see you about more we hope.
pops........
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
You win. I'm a hypocrite for mentioning it. Why should we articulate disagreement with the prevailing mindset when it's a biological inherent? People might call you awful names and ascribe lots of ulterior motivations to your actions.
On a purely unrelated note, I see that Math girl reads French.
On a purely unrelated note, I see that Math girl reads French.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
MlledeLaPlumeBleu said:
Everyone is bucking for inclusion. Otherwise there's no purpose in joining in a social conversation. You can't be bucking for exclusion and be social at the same time. That's, well, paradoxical.
Gawdfuckingdammit! He's watching TRIGUN and I have to work!!!
*throws a hissy fit*
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
MlledeLaPlumeBleu said:
Prevailing mindset? You've lost me. I saw no articulation against a mindset; I saw only articulation against the presence of cliques with supporting anecdotal evidence that such things exist and, in so doing, perpetrate bad things on others. Any other arguments were unclear or not present.
For clarity's sake:
Argument: a claim or hypothesis
I will ignore the "You win" taunt. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion that carries some sort of respect between participants. Please have the courtesy to treat others with the same respect you expect to be treated with. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
KM said, as quoted below,
I respond. No, I don't think the sociobiology of the situation is as you say; that a clique is like a pack of wolves, etc. Or that the 'dominant persons' of a clique are the 'alphas' the 'pack leaders and harem holders. These are objective phenomena.
It's true that a group's behavior may not be explainable in terms of individual intent. After all, the individual A's intent may simply be, "I'll interact with B". Exclusion of X,Y,Z, etc. in not necessarily intended. Multiply this over several individuals, B,C, D, who talk almost entirely to each other and there is an exclusionary result.
What you concentrate on is the existence of a group, which is, in fact, an 'in group.' What you ignore is the mechanism of control that keeps the in group that way. The mechanism is a kind of domination of the minds of all others, to accept something very simple: that they are deservedly 'out'. Deservedly in view of the merits of the 'ins.'
It's this smoke and mirrors--subjective-- phenomenon that needs to be looked at. If you watch the sudden changes in certain forums, it substantiates my approach. The 'ins' seem established, but are very precariously so. A few rumblings and some folks are off in a huff, and there's a whole new ball game. Which is to say that there was little objective basis for the set-up; little objective power.
It's a bit like the Wizard of Oz, or The Emperors New Clothes. Or Enron. Since there no practice of blocking postings, it merely takes a few threads that point to the Emperor(s) and the structure totters. The 'reality' dictated by the 'powerful' begins to crumble. The power of a few existed when it did, mainly in the minds of the others.
J.
KM said,
There is a simple fact of biology that we're pretty much stuck with. We are human beings and we can't escape that. Humans are herd animals. We move in groups. If we were wolves, we'd call the cliques "packs". If we were whales, we'd call the cliques "pods". I don't believe that cliques are necessarily evil anymore than I believe they are necessarily good.
People group up through mutual interest and familiarity. Sometimes that puts others on the fringe or the outside. Sometimes it doesn't. To assign intent to group behavior is actually a little silly since groups don't really think about what they're doing until they've done it. Is it wrong to do so? There's more strong arguments that it is wrong than there are arguments that it's not. Is is premeditated? No.
The hangout is cliquey like every single other human gathering place. If you don't think the place you hang out has cliques, it's probably because you're in a clique.
I respond. No, I don't think the sociobiology of the situation is as you say; that a clique is like a pack of wolves, etc. Or that the 'dominant persons' of a clique are the 'alphas' the 'pack leaders and harem holders. These are objective phenomena.
It's true that a group's behavior may not be explainable in terms of individual intent. After all, the individual A's intent may simply be, "I'll interact with B". Exclusion of X,Y,Z, etc. in not necessarily intended. Multiply this over several individuals, B,C, D, who talk almost entirely to each other and there is an exclusionary result.
What you concentrate on is the existence of a group, which is, in fact, an 'in group.' What you ignore is the mechanism of control that keeps the in group that way. The mechanism is a kind of domination of the minds of all others, to accept something very simple: that they are deservedly 'out'. Deservedly in view of the merits of the 'ins.'
It's this smoke and mirrors--subjective-- phenomenon that needs to be looked at. If you watch the sudden changes in certain forums, it substantiates my approach. The 'ins' seem established, but are very precariously so. A few rumblings and some folks are off in a huff, and there's a whole new ball game. Which is to say that there was little objective basis for the set-up; little objective power.
It's a bit like the Wizard of Oz, or The Emperors New Clothes. Or Enron. Since there no practice of blocking postings, it merely takes a few threads that point to the Emperor(s) and the structure totters. The 'reality' dictated by the 'powerful' begins to crumble. The power of a few existed when it did, mainly in the minds of the others.
J.
KM said,
There is a simple fact of biology that we're pretty much stuck with. We are human beings and we can't escape that. Humans are herd animals. We move in groups. If we were wolves, we'd call the cliques "packs". If we were whales, we'd call the cliques "pods". I don't believe that cliques are necessarily evil anymore than I believe they are necessarily good.
People group up through mutual interest and familiarity. Sometimes that puts others on the fringe or the outside. Sometimes it doesn't. To assign intent to group behavior is actually a little silly since groups don't really think about what they're doing until they've done it. Is it wrong to do so? There's more strong arguments that it is wrong than there are arguments that it's not. Is is premeditated? No.
The hangout is cliquey like every single other human gathering place. If you don't think the place you hang out has cliques, it's probably because you're in a clique.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Perdita here.
I hope it's obvious I will give no response to any opinions about me that are personal, however derived or analyzed, especially by any persons but the five on Lit. who know me as a real person.
And to those known persons I ask that you not discuss me for whatever reason or intent, or my motives, or choice of words further. Others may of course do what they will; it does not matter to me.
Perdita
I hope it's obvious I will give no response to any opinions about me that are personal, however derived or analyzed, especially by any persons but the five on Lit. who know me as a real person.
And to those known persons I ask that you not discuss me for whatever reason or intent, or my motives, or choice of words further. Others may of course do what they will; it does not matter to me.
Perdita
