Cliquey

[KillerMuffin]

Social sanctions are the preferred method for one individual or group to maintain dominance or "control" over other individuals or groups.

I believe I mentioned them and did not assign a value judgment on whether they were necessarily "good" or "bad".

Local negative social sanctions include the cyber version of the cut direct, sarcasm, one liner put downs, and outright insults. Positive social sanctions would be hugs, praise, and certain beta behaviors (such as submissiveness toward perceived alpha), and the excusing of outrageous behavior that would normally receive negative social sanctions from the group.

Group social sanctions are the primary reason why I believe that this forum does not need to be moderated. The group moderates the forum itself through the use of sanctions--both positive and negative.

Cliques do not exist because of these sanctions and these sanctions do not exist because of cliques. They do, however, go hand in hand as both of these things are social behavior inherent in the individual. It's why adult gatherings are often referred to as being "junior high" or "playground" in flavor. We are born with the instinct to "group up" or form social circles. Everyone knows that there is safety in numbers. The instinct to survive is one of the strongest we possess and, as herd animals, there is a stronger chance of survival in a group. There is also a certain amount of unconsciously perceived threat in the unknown or in those who are different. The strength of that perceived threat grows as we age since we get hurt by others as we grow. We learn these group behaviors in the highly stratified school settings and reinforce them where ever we become a part of a group, any group.

My argument is that cliques have no inherent badness or goodness, they just are. I also claim that by recognizing the sanctions and reasoning behind the sanction we take against others--in particular new people, we can use reason rather than biology in our dealings with them.

I have no argument regarding negative social sanctions since I don't really want to get involved in a cyberbrawl today.

Again, for clarity's sake, argument is a hypothesis or a claim, not a verbal fist fight. I have an engineer's soul.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I must apologize to you, Ms. Bleu. I just re-read my post that included the hypocrisy word. The first paragraph was meant to be a joke, but after reading it again, it didn't come across that way. I did not mean it as a slam or criticism of you. I forget that people can't read my expression or my tone on a monitor sometimes.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

>>>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.

I'm not having an argument. The prevailing mindset, in my opinion, would be that of those who would perpetuate and condone the existence of cliques. A clique is not a group. To say that something is a clique holds certain connotations. I may belong to groups, I do not belong to cliques. You will find me absolutely approachable. To say that cliques are everywhere is erroneous; there is a difference between association and separation. Yes, people of like races tend to associate with each other, but don't we ascribe a difference between that and the National Front, who would put everyone else on a boat?

And if we wave off the notion that cliques are unpleasant by saying that cliques are biologically inevitable, aren't we in essence invalidating the concepts of self-analysis and free will? There was a study not long ago about rape, wherein a scientist attempted to explain the rape of women as a biologically-driven directive by unattractive males. However, even if this were proven true, does it excuse the ramifications? I don't think any of us would suggest that we tolerate such behavior, merely because our nature portends it. One, then, has a choice in how we behave- to chalk everything up to instinct and the inevitability of nature is irresponsible.

It is not hypocritical to criticize things that are critical themselves, merely becuse the criticism is negative. That ideology would pretty much quash any relevant social commentary unless it was followed by wiggles and kisses. Our civilization was not built on "If you don't have anything nice to say..."

>>>For clarity's sake:

>>>Argument: a claim or hypothesis

Good, you'd best lay that out for me. Clearly I'm working with a scant few neurons here, right Muffie?


>>>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.

Well, actually that wasn't so much a taunt as a sigh of resignation. I was trying to avoid another mammoth post to respond to all the interesting points in your screed. But thank you for ignoring it. I, in turn, will ignore your inference that I am less than intelligent, cannot form rational points of discussion and deserve to be issued smarmy edicts of advance "thanks".

mlle

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Ok.

To a certain someone, from a certain someone, who the other someone would not deign to mention, I apologize for using you as an example. Your words are certainly not public domain, even if they are posted here. I regret citing them, attributing them and assigning them motivations. Clearly this is not something that people do on this board, and I respect that. I will not mention you again.

 

[Pure]

KM said, in small part,

We are human beings and we can't escape that. Humans are herd animals. [& etc. & etc.]

People group up through mutual interest and familiarity. Sometimes that puts others on the fringe or the outside. Sometimes it doesn't. [& etc. & etc.

Cliques aren't wrong for existing. [& etc...]

======
Muffie, you give great mind-fuck!

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

I'm not altogether too fucked, I don't know about you, Pure It takes more than a little verbal face-slapping to daunt my vigor. Although, for some reason I did get this recurrent image of me and Miss Muffin thwacking each other ferociously with wiffle-bats in a nerf arena. I wonder about the astrological assignment of Miss Muffin. Is she a Leo? Or a shark-type pisces like myself?

What are you, Pure? Anyone? C'mon, kids. Post. You won't get your head bit off- although you might get it fucked by the Vast and Veiny Cock of Sociology...but it only hurts on the way in! I swear.

 

[Just_John1]

Madameoysel... said in my most american dialect

I have found your position and dialog fascinating. After reading the hyperbole back and forth I now question my definition of a 'clique' I have to admit I have always been two things, one a shadow walker, walking close to the walls, avoiding confrontation, and two a devoted anti-clique (i also grew up in a time and place where antiestablishment behavior was a form of courting). I lurk here often and feel I've gotten to know how some people think, a touch of their personalities but I would not know them if they smacked me on the sidewalk (that is not an invitation by the way).

I have noticed however that there are two distinct types of cliques. One seems to be born of exclusionary motives. One is of like minded people that gravitate together. Still considered a clique but much less exclusionary.

My feeling from observing often is that most of what I see here is form two. I see members come and go, some welcomed and some are ignored. I think most of the people that get involved here are bright people some intensely so. Gauche, I sometimes feel like I've ventured too close to the flame with you, but your posts always fascinate me. (Gollum was always a character that fascinated me from the very first time I read the Hobbit) Dr Mab always inspires a good exchange of ideas, all are considered, most are deemed worthy of a response. I don't mean that as a slam it is just a function of time, no one has the time to respond to everything. We have ended up on opposite sides of arguments and the same sides of arguments, maybe arguments is the wrong word, how about discussions?

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that there is a pretty decent group of very bright people here. Pops I'm sorry I've never taken the time to say hey! I have enjoyed many of your posts. You get what you give here and in all human interraction situations no one is trusted immediately. There are stronger personalties and weaker ones, most generated by the amount of time various people have to invest, not by their real time personalities.

I guess I should thank the people that spark these conversations. You for one Mlle. interesting posts, I respect the opinion, the effort in wording it well and the motivation to think.

Shit, that was the longest post I've ever made... hope it made some sense.

JJ1

 

[Gabriel_Lee]

posters either talked about fucking fairies and other arbitrary matters to dispell their tension, or, began a sly process of censure

Welcome, Mlle of the Blue Pen.

Please don't think my initial post about fairies was frivolous, it wasn't. I was simply trying to make a serious point in a light hearted illustrative way.

Cliques, gods and fairies are emergent phenomena. We start thinking about them. and they start existing in ways they never did before. Soon people either have to agree they exist or disagree. I didn't pick on gods, because if you pick on the wrong one, people are likely to stone you - I thought fairies would be safer. Talking about cliques starts people feeling self-conscious - but I think we can all handle that.

If you think you might be getting into a clique, please scream.

Welcome. GL

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

I don't think there's much danger of that Clicking with the clique, that is. I'm really not a cloven-tongued, tail-lashing beast, honestly. I just hate it when people become Lord o' the Manor over their little pissing grounds. And I have no problem with fairies- nor your inclusion of them. I've heard they're clean and warm, and largely self-entertaining.

"Miss Blue-pen"

 

[Pure]

GabrielLee said,

/Please don't think my initial post about fairies was frivolous, it wasn't. I was simply trying to make a serious point in a light hearted illustrative way.

Cliques, gods and fairies are emergent phenomena. We start thinking about them. and they start existing in ways they never did before. Soon people either have to agree they exist or disagree. I didn't pick on gods, because if you pick on the wrong one, people are likely to stone you - I thought fairies would be safer. Talking about cliques starts people feeling self-conscious - but I think we can all handle that.

If you think you might be getting into a clique, please scream. /

From the mention of cliques, inevitably came the question do they exist. Gabriel, did a sort of 'Do we or Don't we believe...." and then, if we don't believe they die, and etc. Then came Tom, inevitably. An analogy: If you mention the 'butt' of a gun to some 4 year olds, what do you think they'll be talking about, next? Dr. M's basic observation was confirmed:

QED.

Rather than get mired in 'emergents' and KM's Soc 101 notes, I call attention to Dr M's clarification-- sorry but it seems to have gotten lost:


When I complained about cliques, I didn;t mean so much the inevitable formation of groups of friends. It's this cutesy cheek-kissing and chin-chucking that's the kind of thing I meant. The kind of insufferable gassy chattiness you see on the general boards, like:

A: Hey B! The weather's great over here!
B: Yeah, here too! Stinks were C is though
C: Oh yeah?
A: Yeah!
B: What A says, C!
A: How're the piles, C?
C: They look like you, A!
B: Busted, A!
C: !!!

Crap like that.

[...] this place is a fucking embarrassment. At least to me, and I don't embarrass easily.

From Tom, to the Les Paul guitar, the froth foamed. You wanted 'deep' said Math G, 'poor baby.'

No doubt these are, as says JJ1, 'a pretty decent group of very intelligent people.' Are they the 'good buddies' or the 'exclusionary' sort of clique-- those being JJ1's terms.

This is just the question that KM wanted "is the clique a bad thing"? Well, if there are all good people in it, and good people don't do bad things, that pretty much settles it; so it's said.

So instead of cliques and fairies and Tom, let's deal with what has been observed in respect of actions. Some call it 'inanity' [Gauche]; some 'gassy chattiness' [Dr. M], some 'froth', some 'good fun of good buddies'.

Does it work to exclude? My experience is yes, since it doesn't just pop up when the buddies feel good, but when 'uncomfortable' or 'settled' topics are broached. (Settled: applied to a topic on which all have decided to agree and congratulate one another's acumen.)

Is this a claim about intent? No. More about narcissism: I matter. My interests, and even whims matter. Will one of my buddies distract me from this boredom?

J.

 

[Just-Legal]

Yes, I've noticed there are cliques, I think I may have inadvertently formed one with Svenska on the Book Hero that dare not speak his name, but I don't think they are inherently bad.

The members of these cliques often make an effort to be accepting of newcomers, or is that just me?

Oh, there has been the odd newbie toasting... But lets not get into my views on that eh?

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Field guide to the common online clique...

I think it’s a bit paranoid to believe in the ‘collective.’ It suggests that there is a specific organisation that consciously acts to exclude people with differing opinions and that is way off IMHO. People do make friends here and people will tend to stick up for their friends if they’re attacked. There’s nothing more sinister than that. Hell, my first argument on Lit was when someone laid into KM who I respect. Didn’t mean that I froze her out, just meant that we exchanged opinions.

I try very hard not to judge people on first opinions, but your first post is incredibly presumptuous. 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. Check out the first posts of many of the established authors on here. You’ll notice that 90% started off just by responding to a thread and just got accepted. If you have an opinion, then we’ll talk to you. There really is no huge Author’s Hangout evil agenda.

I agree with you that there should be more writing oriented threads, but I don’t think this forum should be completely devoid of talk. I like talking to people in here. I’ve made some good friends through some of the banter.

You seem slightly hypocritical in your posting. You are lambasting ‘the collective’ for ostracising people with opinions that diverge from theirs and yet you are laying into all and sundry who disagree with Dr M. No, you’re not a barbaric, “unhuggable” bitch. You are someone who is very passionate about her opinions and has the intelligence to be able to back them up, but I dislike a lot of your presumptions and the wide-inclusive statements that tar everyone with the same brush.

Do reply. This isn’t meant to be one huge rant at you; this is meant to just express my opinions.

The Earl

PS. I have been attacked by J-L and Svenska’s collective for crimes against Harry Potter before .

Edited to make clear that this was addressed to Mlle de la Plume Bleu. Sorry, this post was edited several times before I posted and some bits may not be clear.

 

[Pure]

The Earl said

[presumably about Mlle de la Plume Bleu]
You seem slightly hypocritical in your posting. You are lambasting ‘the collective’ for ostracising people with opinions that diverge from theirs and yet you are laying into all and sundry who disagree with Dr M.

This point seems without merit. Indeed, 'hypocrisy' was already suggested and apologized for, by Killer M. You too might consider it.

I see no parallel between a group's exclusionary practices (if they exist), and one person 'laying into' *some* of those who disagree-- not, 'all and sundry.' You have no basis for jumping from Mlle's argumentative or critical doings, to a judgment about her alleged intolerance for opinions that disagree with hers. There's much evidence of the gassy doings of the regulars, and hardly any about Mlle.

I'm assuming your good will, and that, like a couple others, you got a bit 'overenthusiastic' about countering Mlle's points in ad hominen fashion, and I hope I'm not proven wrong.

Best,
J.

 

[MathGirl]

Re: Re: Field guide to the common online clique...

you are laying into all and sundry who disagree with Dr M.

Dear Earl,
Gosh, disagreeing with Dr M and disliking HP have become part of my way of life.
MG

 

[hiddenself]

Cool thread

Lots of masks pulled (temporarily?) aside.

The dreaded clique?

Isn't the truth of dr.M.'s point evident?

Here's my current list (in no particular order):

Oggbashan, Perdita, EnglishLady, Wildsweetone, Pop_54, MathGirl, TheEarl, Gauchecritic, Wicked-N-Erotic, Svenskaflicka.

Others (Weird Harold, Octavian, dr_Mabeuse, come to mind) are also posters on the AH board but do not (always) play nice just for the sake of playing nice. That's my own defining criterion.

[Chicklet, I cannot really place. I guess she's in the clique. KM is... well, KM.]

Here's my view. Everyone deserves to be criticized occasionally (and, yes, even attacked). We all fuck up sometimes, we all say or do stupid things, and if those around us don't call us on it but still pretend that we're all oh-so-great, then there's a problem, IMO. This brings me to...

My own definition of the clique here is of people who tend to post "feel good" and "respectful" things about each other, say how much they like and appreciate each other etc etc. ("you are so funny," "don't listen to anyone who criticizes anything about you, your writing, your dog, whatever -- he/she is a moron," "you are a great person and a great writer"). This, to an often sickening extent (open up many of the recent threads and you'll see what I mean) that tends to correlate with lots of fluff and trivialty (Chicklet and dr.M. griped about that too, recently).

The big problem here is not the interminable mutual ego stroking, but rather the total avoidance (at all cost) of making any negative meaningful comment, "criticizing," or "attacking" any member of the clique -- even when perfectly justified. When there's an outside target, however, the gloves are off and getting personal does not seem to be a problem.

So, it's not the disagreeing or ostracizing per se that defines the clique for me (and makes it somewhat unappetizing). It's the insincerity, hypocricy and double standards (as I perceive them, of course).

But I still come here cause lots of posts make me think, cause I learn stuff, and cause I sometimes smile or laugh (and, once in a while, cry too). And that's due to the clique's contributions too. So, all in all, it's still a good deal.


PS Note to KM: I think there's far more than "anecdotal evidence" about this.

PPS Note to PlumeBleu: by virtue of your own personal comments (Pops, backtracking on Perdita), you've made a good start in becoming a card-carrying clique member, IMO. You have nothing to worry about.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Earl-

What is most ironic to me about this entire situation is that I didn't make my observations from a biased perspective. I had been reading threads on the Author's Hangout for some time as "third-party omniscient". It's like being in a duck blind- you get to see the interplay and dynamic of the group without subjectivity. Obviously, now that I'm speaking to you, some of that ability for detached objectivity will be lost- immersion compromises perspective. That is why I have a hard time believing that you can objectively assess the actions and resultant ramifications of your chums and acquaintances.

You're right, I was absolutely, stone presumptuous. Why shouldn't I draw a conclusion based on my own observations? Could the analysis have been proven wrong in my case? Perhaps. I'm clearly not being ostracized now, despite my views and my rather strapping, milk-fed way of expressing them. However- and this is the point- it is true for many people who have tried to post to this board. I doubt that you would have even noticed them- they tend to pass through, sieve-like, and disappear entirely after a few failed attempts at conversation.

Where are all these wronged individuals? Well, in your experience, do the rejected usually come forward to voice their disappointment? No one is going to say ' "Hey, yeah- that's me! I tried to start a conversation and got totally shunned by these "cool, literate people"- and I feel really bad about it- my feelings are hurt" '. People do not call other people on their bad behavior when they are in a position of weakness. That is why I responded- because I have no need for reassurance about my writing, my person, or the validity of my thoughts. That's all.

What I find most ironic is that you are one of the last people I would accuse of such behavior- I've seen you reply to a variety of posts with genial good-nature, much like Pops. If you feel painted by a broad brush, then you turned it on yourself. In fact, that is one of the most fascinating aspects of this whole affair- so far it seems to have been a case of the non-transgressors coming forward to defend their exclusionary friends- and precious little from the ones who know whereof I speak- the excommunicator or excommunicatee.

Instead there have been tentative testimonials from individuals who "kind of see it, but it didn't really happen to me". But kids, guess what- if you saw it happen, it does happen. It's not a figment, not a unicorn, not a monkey astronaut in an easy-cheez rocket. It is natural to be relieved that you're not the one it happened to- the urge for self-preservation is strong as hell.

Regardless, the best statement of all was made when Pure essentially said that the "clique" is a paper tiger- the tastemaking threat of which inhibits and intimidates the vast majority of the masses. Oh, they're following this thread, believe me. They aren't saying shit, but they're reading it. And you know what kids? It's origami with flash-pots. Sulfur dust and sand.

As for the "red herrings" that keep popping up-

>>>check out the first posts of many of the established authors on here. You’ll notice that 90% started off just by responding to a thread and just got accepted. If you have an opinion, then we’ll talk to you. There really is no huge Author’s Hangout evil agenda.<<<

Yes, the established authors. Hmmm. What were we saying about them again? It seems to me that when you look at the list of published Lit authors who are perusing the boards each day there are a lot more than ten represented. And yet they remain oddly silent. Perhaps they're typing mutes.

>>>It's a bit paranoid to believe in the 'collective'>>>

Isn't that the marching standard of every shadow government or monopoly? A flag to fight behind, as The Moment once sang...

>>>People do make friends here and people will tend to stick up for their friends if they’re attacked. There’s nothing more sinister than that.>>>

Isn't that sinister enough? Christ on cracker. What if the friend in question is trampling another person without merit, or trashing someone for the transient rush of intellectual superiority? What if the friend in question is being a reprehensible, shallow human being? What then? Semper fi? E pluris unum?

Et tu, Earl?

Oh, and let's not forget my favorite, unrelated reply: "It isn't like we stay up all night plotting how to exclude people- jeez!"

No, at this point it comes quite naturally, I'm afraid. By instinct, as the Murderous Muffin might say...

On the lighter side, Earl- I like you. I like you and I like your hot football action pic. And do you know what? I think Harry Potter is a blatant rip-off of Craig Shaw Gardener's Ebenezum series, which was written in the seventies, and I hope you didn't apologize too much for your opinion.

mlle

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Hiddenself-

Excellent, bad ass reply. I concur with your laundry list of rampant cliquery- although I don't think all of these individuals are practitioners- some are merely enablers.

However, you can just lovingly kiss my sharries in response to that "scathing" post-script. I may not have made the sarcasm quite blatant enough in my response to she-who-must-not-be-named-though-others-may-do-as-they-will. The fact is that what she said is open to discussion- she posted it on a public message board for pete's sake. This goose and gander welfare notion is mind-boggling- the basest minuitiae in the statements of others come under fire on a regular basis, not to mention every little facet of a person's punctuation- but when it comes to turnabout- how dare you even speak my name! If there's hypocrisy at play in this little schoolyard menagerie, I think we know whose feet to lay it at.

The fact is, she didn't like the sodium light being swung her way- though plenty a time I've seen her swing it. And who can blame her? Slow vivesection is an uncomfortable business. I have no interest in torturing someone's mean old auntie- she asked me not to mention her or her words again, so I won't. It's a non-issue, save for that, unsuprisingly, people prefer to ladle abuse into other people's bowls than swallow criticism themselves. Herein lies the main difference- I derive no pleasure from tearing people down. If someone wants to be friendly, I'm not going to shun them on principle. To do *that* would be hypocritical. However, within that friendship is the understood caveat that I'm not going to gild the lily on their behalf. If you act like a bastard, I'm going to call you on it- whether or not everyone else thinks I'm "not nice".

As for Pops, I think he's grand. Yes, he did rush to defend she-who-must-not-be-named, but he didn't completely gloss over my points, nor is he a perpetrator of the trust at large. What I'm more irked by is the 'contrarians' whose first response is the automatic gainsay of anything ventured, regardless of whether there's a context for their ire.

mlle

you don't really have to kiss my sharries. No. On second thought, you better give them a tongue massage.

 

[cahab]

I doubt that you would have even noticed them- they tend to pass through, sieve-like, and disappear entirely after a few failed attempts at conversation.

I think this is probably true. I have certainly felt ignored on a few occasions, not just on AH.

On one occasion I posted a perfectly reasonable, I thought, request for story ideas. A couple of the regular posters from here posted a couple of fatuous and sarcastic replies, and effectively killed the thread. I just posted an equally sarcastic and fatuous comment and gave up on it.

Effectively, therefore, I'm not sure if this is really a clique in the strict sense or not, as that implies some sort of comraderie; I think the truth is merely that those bitter, sarcastic and thick-skinned individuals scare off everyone else without offending each other.

As I am equally bitter, sarcastic and thick-skinned myself it doesn't bother me too much. I'm at least going to hang around until I can wave an AV at everyone.

 

[Gabriel_Lee]

Originally posted by cahab
As I am equally bitter, sarcastic and thick-skinned myself it doesn't bother me too much. I'm at least going to hang around until I can wave an AV at everyone.

It weren't till I got an AV that ppl realised how smart and sofisticated I was.

GL

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Well, and don't forget literate- not many people know how to correctly use their accent "z's"- i.e. Enuff z' Nuff, Dangerous Toyz, Metallica Roolz....



But I digress...

 

[oggbashan]

Clique or Claque

It is difficult to defend against an accusation of being in a clique or a claque.

The perception of either is subjective and depends on the viewpoint. I don't think I'm in either. I like interacting on the Authors' Hangout. I know that my humour amuses some and irritates others. I respond to those who respond to me.

Some threads interest me, some don't. Some might interest me but I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

Sometimes I get it wrong and my threads or posts are ignored. Sometimes I'm just boring. Sometimes I'm just wrong and I get told that I am.

It is almost impossible to deal with a "conspiracy theory" because whatever you do, or do not do, can be quoted as evidence to support the theory.

All I hope for is that the Authors' Hangout can continue to be a pleasant place to exchange views between individuals on a variety of topics that interest authors.

I try to be polite whenever I post. I don't always succeed. I believe that everyone has a right to express their views even if I disagree with them. That is what free speech is about.

Og

 

[Gabriel_Lee]

Originally posted by oggbashan
I try to be polite whenever I post. I don't always succeed. I believe that everyone has a right to express their views even if I disagree with them. That is what free speech is about.

No, it isn't!

GL

 

[wildsweetone]

Am I IN or am I OUT?

I've pondered this thought for days really and to tell the truth, I don't care less which it is. I enjoy spending time here, I enjoy learning and helping and I enjoy seeing people respecting each other.

That sometimes I step in and give my two pennies worth when it seems like a misunderstanding has occurred is only my way of helping ease people over a rough spot. True, I have no specific link in the heirachy, I just see things as they are and offer.

I don't know about being particularly 'cliquey' with anyone. I have several friends here that I'm glad I have in my life.

Those who know me well, know how I tick and frankly that's all that matters.

I am very comfortable with my own self and with what I am.

And to be completely frank Hiddenself, I can't for the life of me see how I made it into the List you mentioned (whatever it means). I play nice most of the time because that's what I am.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Everyone is bucking for inclusion. Otherwise there's no purpose in joining in a social conversation.

There's another reason to join in a social converstion, and that is for the civilizied exchange of interesting ideas and views. Clusion, whether in or ex, has nothing to do with it

See, that was my original beef. I was tired of so many people using the board for socializing and showing off their own wit rather than for exchanging anything of substance. That was all.

There's nothing wrong with showing off and being clever if that gets you off, but there's another board set up just for that purpose: The General Board. There is not another board set up for writers to talk about writerly things.

That's why I didn't take part in Chicklet's attempt to create a new socializing board here (& I did admire Chicklet's valieant effort): one already exists, and if people won't use that, they certainly won't use a new one. Flashing your wit or waving to friends is only fun when you can flash it where people aren't expecting it.

Blue: I must say I am amazed that you were able to resurrect this thread from what it had become. I admit I just walked away, spitballs pelting my back.

And once again, my compromise on the Fatuosity debate is this: I won't complain in your fatuous threads if you won't fatuize in my serious threads. So far it seems to be working okay.

---dr.M.

Wait, wait: About cliques: I don;t think cliques really exist here in the sense that you have intentional exclusion or inclusion, although there are apparently some mutual alliances: but what you do have are people playing Social Roles as they do in cliques: You have the Class Clown, the Facilitator, etc. and you have a lot of the very cliquish behavior of freezing people out or of ridiculing them, having fun at their expense. Lord knows I've certainly done it, and it's cool till you realize what you're doing. Then you do feel kind of grimey.

 

[pop_54]

Re: Cool thread

PPS Note to PlumeBleu: by virtue of your own personal comments (Pops, backtracking on Perdita), you've made a good start in becoming a card-carrying clique member, IMO. You have nothing to worry about.

Maybe re-reading the tread replies would help here with this strange comment.

I didn't see any backtracking anywhere, or any evidence that mlle Plumblue has applied for, or been accepted into any clique.

I made a comment I thought needed to be made.

I saw mlle Plumblue have the decency and bottle to acknowledge a certain item and offer a small apology and explaination.

I accepted the explaination and as a matter of common politness welcomed her to the throng of the AH, (not to a clique) I also offered a hand of polite friendship in doing so.

No backtracking or any other tracking, no bad feeling and no particular instant close friendship, just an acknowledgement of her decent response and a thanks for her comments about me in general.

I'd do the same for anyone, in similar circumstances.