Cliquey
- Thread starter dr_mabeuse
- Start date
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Pure and The Blue Pen. (hmm) Earl D'ya wanna join their gang? It's so much more erudite, learned (accent on second 'e') and befitting of sound education and (posted) moral values. And if your an earth/water/air sign (?) so much the better. (Did no one else research that?)
WARNING: Do not speak to, appear in or otherwise coincide within the same thread as this cast: Oggbashan, Perdita, EnglishLady, Wildsweetone, Pop_54, MathGirl, TheEarl, Gauchecritic, Wicked-N-Erotic or Svenskaflicka or you will be cliqued.
Post sparingly and with great forethought. One liners are verboten.
"The Non-Biased Perspective": White, middle(?) class, educated, able to research and quote verbatim, indulges in 'naughty' things.
(Why oh why do I always resort to sarcasm when I've had a drink?)
Hiddenself (and I thought you were one of us
) Where does your theory of cliquiness include me and TheEarl having a slanging match some threads ago. Me attempting to have a reasonable arguement with Pure (the less that is mentioned the better) and no interruptions from the cliquettes when it got dirty. Me upsetting various members of 'my' clique with wit and impenetrable dry humour, not forgetting sarcasm. Oops this isn't just about me is it? Oops again, just researched a bit and I can be labelled an enabler. Sorry. (Fool! Never apologise
"Perpetrating bad things on others." Now there's a thought (From The Blue Pen)
"Do the actions of cliques work to exclude?"
In the short term obviously, for that is why cliques exist and are ipso facto inherently evil. They struggle to preserve their own 'power' as does anything with 'power'. However the actions of a 'self-aware' clique will always strive to include new members because as we all know balance is dynamic.
So what is the problem then? The problem would be how to destabilize the clique enough to gain entry or form a more acceptable and therefor more 'powerful' clique. End of Message.
"How To Condone A Clique."
The exact same way that you condone: violence, Naziism, inequality, Racism, starvation, Communism, torture and Fascism. You just sit on arse and do nothing. (Or bemoan humanity)
Gauche
WARNING: Do not speak to, appear in or otherwise coincide within the same thread as this cast: Oggbashan, Perdita, EnglishLady, Wildsweetone, Pop_54, MathGirl, TheEarl, Gauchecritic, Wicked-N-Erotic or Svenskaflicka or you will be cliqued.
Post sparingly and with great forethought. One liners are verboten.
"The Non-Biased Perspective": White, middle(?) class, educated, able to research and quote verbatim, indulges in 'naughty' things.
(Why oh why do I always resort to sarcasm when I've had a drink?)
Hiddenself (and I thought you were one of us
) Where does your theory of cliquiness include me and TheEarl having a slanging match some threads ago. Me attempting to have a reasonable arguement with Pure (the less that is mentioned the better) and no interruptions from the cliquettes when it got dirty. Me upsetting various members of 'my' clique with wit and impenetrable dry humour, not forgetting sarcasm. Oops this isn't just about me is it? Oops again, just researched a bit and I can be labelled an enabler. Sorry. (Fool! Never apologise "Perpetrating bad things on others." Now there's a thought (From The Blue Pen)
"Do the actions of cliques work to exclude?"
In the short term obviously, for that is why cliques exist and are ipso facto inherently evil. They struggle to preserve their own 'power' as does anything with 'power'. However the actions of a 'self-aware' clique will always strive to include new members because as we all know balance is dynamic.
So what is the problem then? The problem would be how to destabilize the clique enough to gain entry or form a more acceptable and therefor more 'powerful' clique. End of Message.
"How To Condone A Clique."
The exact same way that you condone: violence, Naziism, inequality, Racism, starvation, Communism, torture and Fascism. You just sit on arse and do nothing. (Or bemoan humanity)
Gauche
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Um, Gauche- that wasn't from me. You misquoted. That was the Muffin-gal. I'll take the blame- I did a crappy job of delineating her excised sections and my responses. Besides, surely in all my erudite whiteness I would never profess to perpetrate bad things "on" someone- only *toward* them...
Miss Blue-pen
Miss Blue-pen
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Hey, wait. I'm still rankling.
Ok, Gauche- don't you think it's a bit odd to be down on my writing/education/knowledge on a *literary site*? This is the one place I wouldn't have expected to get the "over-educated" remark. You're every bit as over-educated as I am- everyone on this fucking thread is, that's why it's actually a discussion and not *kitten wiggles*. Yeah, I'm white. I'm mass white. You know how white I am? I have a dual citizenship. To Finland. You don't get much whiter or more northerly than that.
And for the record, I'm largely auto-didactic. My degree is in opera performance. Hardly the kind of shit that's going to put my on the cover of TIME. Privileged? Sure. I got a full scholarship.
And I hereby invite everyone to the grand opening of the "newer, more powerful clique". BYOB.
Ok, Gauche- don't you think it's a bit odd to be down on my writing/education/knowledge on a *literary site*? This is the one place I wouldn't have expected to get the "over-educated" remark. You're every bit as over-educated as I am- everyone on this fucking thread is, that's why it's actually a discussion and not *kitten wiggles*. Yeah, I'm white. I'm mass white. You know how white I am? I have a dual citizenship. To Finland. You don't get much whiter or more northerly than that.
And for the record, I'm largely auto-didactic. My degree is in opera performance. Hardly the kind of shit that's going to put my on the cover of TIME. Privileged? Sure. I got a full scholarship.
And I hereby invite everyone to the grand opening of the "newer, more powerful clique". BYOB.
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
Not to besmirch my newfound reputation as an oppressor of one-offs, but-
What is up with that baby's ASS?
mlle
What is up with that baby's ASS?
mlle
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Ass On The Line
Ain't this grand? Ain't this just the fucking greatest?
What a chance to clear some air!
MathGirl, I'll talk to you, because I made a comment about your crappy jokes and you're pissed. I apologize for what I said. (They're not really that crappy) No, seriously, that's not what I meant. They're not crappy, but I do have a beef with you and here's what it is:
The role you play here--and I think you would agree--is that of class clown. You come in with the one liner, the non-sequitor, the vitz (as we say in Yiddish) score your hit, and disappear back into the badlands of not-southern California, leaving mirth and deflated egos behind, while having the satisfaction of having killed a thread or made a poster look foolish and, of course, inflating your own ego. That MathGirl! She's a caution!
The problem is that it's not fair. There's nothing you can say to a clown: there's no response you can make, no way you can argue or defend yourself. Anyone can be hit with a pie, and everyone looks stupid with pie on their face.
So this makes you deadly, and there are a lot of people around here I would guess who've been tagged by you and have learned to fear you.
But it's also inherently unfair and therefore cruel. Everyone's afraid of you because there's no defence. The reason there's no defence is because you never give us a target. You never tell us what you really think or stand for, you just zap other people and run for it. You can hit us, we can't hit you. I don't think that's fair.
So I just wanted you to know the reason for what antipathy I have for you, which seriously is not very much. I'm sorry I said your one-liners were crappy; that's not what I meant at all. They're not crappy; they're just unfair.
---dr.M.
Ain't this grand? Ain't this just the fucking greatest?
What a chance to clear some air!
MathGirl, I'll talk to you, because I made a comment about your crappy jokes and you're pissed. I apologize for what I said. (They're not really that crappy) No, seriously, that's not what I meant. They're not crappy, but I do have a beef with you and here's what it is:
The role you play here--and I think you would agree--is that of class clown. You come in with the one liner, the non-sequitor, the vitz (as we say in Yiddish) score your hit, and disappear back into the badlands of not-southern California, leaving mirth and deflated egos behind, while having the satisfaction of having killed a thread or made a poster look foolish and, of course, inflating your own ego. That MathGirl! She's a caution!
The problem is that it's not fair. There's nothing you can say to a clown: there's no response you can make, no way you can argue or defend yourself. Anyone can be hit with a pie, and everyone looks stupid with pie on their face.
So this makes you deadly, and there are a lot of people around here I would guess who've been tagged by you and have learned to fear you.
But it's also inherently unfair and therefore cruel. Everyone's afraid of you because there's no defence. The reason there's no defence is because you never give us a target. You never tell us what you really think or stand for, you just zap other people and run for it. You can hit us, we can't hit you. I don't think that's fair.
So I just wanted you to know the reason for what antipathy I have for you, which seriously is not very much. I'm sorry I said your one-liners were crappy; that's not what I meant at all. They're not crappy; they're just unfair.
---dr.M.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hidden Self:
You made a number of good points, though in some areas I would put things differently.
I'm not sure it's useful saying "these are the clique-sters", since that gets into 'am i' 'am I not' 'but I'm very friendly' etc.
More I appreciate the delineation of certain actions:
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).
This was phrased before as 'cutesy cheek kissing and chin chucking.'
I'd add that willingness to post trivialities, and having the reasonable expectation of something chummy, is a common sign.
The person who doesn't feel odd about posting--the entire post--I'm going up the hall to take a piss. Which elicits 'X I'll miss you.'
Then 'I'm back.' (chin-chuck, etc.)
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.
Unwillingness to criticize someone, a pal, needn't be a problem.
A likes B and if B says/does a stupid thing, A is quiet or very gently chiding. But the mutual stroking of A and B is not a problem to others, I think. Who gives a f.f. ?
I'd say the problem is that either A or B don't like certain topics or disagreements in general. So when X and Y start to go at it, A and B enter the scene with cutesy exchanges, and mutual congratulation about comments "This sure is boring" "Snore. Snore. Right on, A"
There's also a variant of what you suggest. Should A run into trouble with some new face, X, B is going to rush in with various psychobabble, personal stuff etc. "Don't you think you're pretty arrogant, X? What's your problem, wanna write some kiddy porn?"
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).
There's a simpler way to put it, as someone {Mabeuse} already has. I don't give a shit about a (hypothetical) bunch of the insincere, even the hypocritical, if they could just keep their fatuities {?} among themselves, where they are deeply appreciated. It's their 'Make the world safe for fatuity project" their actions with a number of insightful others with something to contribute.
One last thing: guessing about race, degrees, etc. The fatuous have that American trait of self-presentation: 'just plain folks, here' .... 'sipping my beer on the back porch.' The 'others', singled out by Spiro Agnew, GWB, etc are the 'pointy heads', the 'intee-lechools' etc. Eastern decadents.
One of those:
J.
You made a number of good points, though in some areas I would put things differently.
I'm not sure it's useful saying "these are the clique-sters", since that gets into 'am i' 'am I not' 'but I'm very friendly' etc.
More I appreciate the delineation of certain actions:
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).
This was phrased before as 'cutesy cheek kissing and chin chucking.'
I'd add that willingness to post trivialities, and having the reasonable expectation of something chummy, is a common sign.
The person who doesn't feel odd about posting--the entire post--I'm going up the hall to take a piss. Which elicits 'X I'll miss you.'
Then 'I'm back.' (chin-chuck, etc.)
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.
Unwillingness to criticize someone, a pal, needn't be a problem.
A likes B and if B says/does a stupid thing, A is quiet or very gently chiding. But the mutual stroking of A and B is not a problem to others, I think. Who gives a f.f. ?
I'd say the problem is that either A or B don't like certain topics or disagreements in general. So when X and Y start to go at it, A and B enter the scene with cutesy exchanges, and mutual congratulation about comments "This sure is boring" "Snore. Snore. Right on, A"
There's also a variant of what you suggest. Should A run into trouble with some new face, X, B is going to rush in with various psychobabble, personal stuff etc. "Don't you think you're pretty arrogant, X? What's your problem, wanna write some kiddy porn?"
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).
There's a simpler way to put it, as someone {Mabeuse} already has. I don't give a shit about a (hypothetical) bunch of the insincere, even the hypocritical, if they could just keep their fatuities {?} among themselves, where they are deeply appreciated. It's their 'Make the world safe for fatuity project" their actions with a number of insightful others with something to contribute.
One last thing: guessing about race, degrees, etc. The fatuous have that American trait of self-presentation: 'just plain folks, here' .... 'sipping my beer on the back porch.' The 'others', singled out by Spiro Agnew, GWB, etc are the 'pointy heads', the 'intee-lechools' etc. Eastern decadents.
One of those:
J.
Last edited:
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
I have to confess that I behaved cliquishly toward Math Girl in this very thread- I didn't address her posts, purely because of the possibility of being ducked and slammed...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Gauche,
I'm not sure I get the point of the congeries of quotations of Bleu and Muffie, so I'll just look at a couple sentences.
Where does your {Hiddenself} theory of cliquiness include ... Me attempting to have a reasonable arguement with Pure (the less that is mentioned the better) and no interruptions from the cliquettes when it got dirty.
You memory is selective: while you and I debated the 'underage' issue, and the effects of reading on peoples actions, the following postings were inserted:
MG:
Dear Gauchie,
That sums it up very nicely. It's hard to believe that anyone's artistic license is going to be dealt a death blow by that rule[against teen sex].
MG
Ps. It's also hard to believe that it is necessary to have this same discussion every week or so. The space could be put to better use in a discussion of ....... oh, say,... garderobes.
Pps. Hey, Perdita. Your PM thingie is stuffed full to overflowing and replete with saiety.
The lady says, "Hey this is unnecessary, let's talk latrines."
The latrine threads, now numerous, being far more 'necessary'-- at least to her.
--
Later:
Quasimodem
You don't often see such mind expanding debate.
"It does."
"It doesn't."
"Does too!"
"Does not!"
"'s too!"
"'S not!"
Math Girl:
Dear Quaz, Let me finish that thought for you:
Tooo!
Noootttt!
Fuck you
No, fuck YOU
You asshole
No, YOU'RE the asshole
Fuck you
Awww, go fuck yourself
No, You go fuck Yourself [/]
Both ADD to the limited amount of name calling.
All points are trivialized. "Who the fuck are these kids?" Condescension reigns. We're so bright and so knowledgeable that a wink and a chin chuck can convey volumes.
MG apparently found a pal in need of rescue and helped out a 'buddy in bad times.'
Later, of course, she was able to complain about the boringness and lack of content of the thread she helped eviscerate.
J.
I'm not sure I get the point of the congeries of quotations of Bleu and Muffie, so I'll just look at a couple sentences.
Where does your {Hiddenself} theory of cliquiness include ... Me attempting to have a reasonable arguement with Pure (the less that is mentioned the better) and no interruptions from the cliquettes when it got dirty.
You memory is selective: while you and I debated the 'underage' issue, and the effects of reading on peoples actions, the following postings were inserted:
MG:
Dear Gauchie,
That sums it up very nicely. It's hard to believe that anyone's artistic license is going to be dealt a death blow by that rule[against teen sex].
MG
Ps. It's also hard to believe that it is necessary to have this same discussion every week or so. The space could be put to better use in a discussion of ....... oh, say,... garderobes.
Pps. Hey, Perdita. Your PM thingie is stuffed full to overflowing and replete with saiety.
The lady says, "Hey this is unnecessary, let's talk latrines."
The latrine threads, now numerous, being far more 'necessary'-- at least to her.
--
Later:
Quasimodem
You don't often see such mind expanding debate.
"It does."
"It doesn't."
"Does too!"
"Does not!"
"'s too!"
"'S not!"
Math Girl:
Dear Quaz, Let me finish that thought for you:
Tooo!
Noootttt!
Fuck you
No, fuck YOU
You asshole
No, YOU'RE the asshole
Fuck you
Awww, go fuck yourself
No, You go fuck Yourself [/]
Both ADD to the limited amount of name calling.
All points are trivialized. "Who the fuck are these kids?" Condescension reigns. We're so bright and so knowledgeable that a wink and a chin chuck can convey volumes.
MG apparently found a pal in need of rescue and helped out a 'buddy in bad times.'
Later, of course, she was able to complain about the boringness and lack of content of the thread she helped eviscerate.
J.
Last edited:
openthighs_sarah
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 713
Whew.
I just read this whole thread. Well, maybe 30% of it, and that 30% was kind of out of order.
All I know is, I wasn't on anyone's list. Since the lists seemed to be mostly bad things, I can't complain.
Cool thread, though. *walks away, chewing gum and blowing bubbles*
Edited to add: This is my 666th post. Just thought it deserved a mention.
I just read this whole thread. Well, maybe 30% of it, and that 30% was kind of out of order.
All I know is, I wasn't on anyone's list. Since the lists seemed to be mostly bad things, I can't complain.
Cool thread, though. *walks away, chewing gum and blowing bubbles*
Edited to add: This is my 666th post. Just thought it deserved a mention.
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
MG: Fuck, it's not like I was complaining. I love the big-ass ant-baby. African natives could trap that baby and suck honey out of its rump. *kitty wiggles*
But seriously: Thread killing is definitely a bigger issue than anything else, up to and including personal respect through interaction. When you jack somebody's thread, you are denying that person the right even to experience a dialogue outside of your influence.
Lest anyone think I mean them, I'm using the Royal You.
mlle
But seriously: Thread killing is definitely a bigger issue than anything else, up to and including personal respect through interaction. When you jack somebody's thread, you are denying that person the right even to experience a dialogue outside of your influence.
Lest anyone think I mean them, I'm using the Royal You.
mlle
Just_John1
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 294
I must be obtuse
Mlle,
I'm not sure I understand, while it sounds absolutely wonderful and your ability to craft ideas in writing is remarkable my understanding of your point is that new people are ignored or shunned. I'm not the brightest guy in the world so I may be mistaken.
Following the assumption that I have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about I wonder if this thread isn't an example in reverse. I think you said that people are shunned or excluded here particularly the new. That may be true at times but I find that is the exception and is usually due to the post itself. There are many that will give your point of view due consideration and will respond to it with intelligence and obvious reflection. If the goal is to get feedback or even a response from the "chosen few" then perhaps, as I think Gauche said, a plan for destabilization to provide the opportunity to make an entrance is the best method.
If you just want some feedback to ideas or to have a literate discussion with people this really isn't too bad a place to do it. I personally have learned more about punctuation, quotes, how to write dialog etc than I ever did in school ( and yes I know it's obvious that I still have much to learn).
The point that I'm trying to get to is this;
You brought up a well spoken thought, it has been given deep throught and consideration by many here, the discussion has been fascinating yet, you are a self admitted observer, exactly what has been professed to be ignored or excluded here.
If I see a post that doesn't interest me I won't respond to it. I have been on the giving side of that arrangement and the getting side. I have posted what I thought was a damned witty response to posts and have returned to find... no response. Like I said earlier I am the consumate thread killer.
Your comments have caused me to reach out to a few that I've observed but never said anything to, some I read many of their posts and think 'where the fuck are you coming from?' some I am in total agreement with. The fact is that your well worded opinion has obviously gotten alot of people to think about the issue, including me.
Isn't the reaction that you've gotten so far exactly the opposite of what you expected? I for one have really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.
JJ1
Mlle,
I'm not sure I understand, while it sounds absolutely wonderful and your ability to craft ideas in writing is remarkable my understanding of your point is that new people are ignored or shunned. I'm not the brightest guy in the world so I may be mistaken.
Following the assumption that I have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about I wonder if this thread isn't an example in reverse. I think you said that people are shunned or excluded here particularly the new. That may be true at times but I find that is the exception and is usually due to the post itself. There are many that will give your point of view due consideration and will respond to it with intelligence and obvious reflection. If the goal is to get feedback or even a response from the "chosen few" then perhaps, as I think Gauche said, a plan for destabilization to provide the opportunity to make an entrance is the best method.
If you just want some feedback to ideas or to have a literate discussion with people this really isn't too bad a place to do it. I personally have learned more about punctuation, quotes, how to write dialog etc than I ever did in school ( and yes I know it's obvious that I still have much to learn).
The point that I'm trying to get to is this;
You brought up a well spoken thought, it has been given deep throught and consideration by many here, the discussion has been fascinating yet, you are a self admitted observer, exactly what has been professed to be ignored or excluded here.
If I see a post that doesn't interest me I won't respond to it. I have been on the giving side of that arrangement and the getting side. I have posted what I thought was a damned witty response to posts and have returned to find... no response. Like I said earlier I am the consumate thread killer.
Your comments have caused me to reach out to a few that I've observed but never said anything to, some I read many of their posts and think 'where the fuck are you coming from?' some I am in total agreement with. The fact is that your well worded opinion has obviously gotten alot of people to think about the issue, including me.
Isn't the reaction that you've gotten so far exactly the opposite of what you expected? I for one have really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.
JJ1
hiddenself
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2002
- Posts
- 452
I use names on purpose. What's the point of oblique gripes if the other person is not allowed the chance to check my own biases?
I hate it when people complain about 'other people' in the abstract. Who are all these other people? If you have a bone to pick, you'd better have the guts to be upfront about it -- and take the flack that goes with it.
Case in point: PlumeBleu, you make a big fuss, but when specific people object, you respond 'not you darling,' 'you're the last person I'd accuse' etc. Sweet, but then, who are these mysterious clique members who (indirectly) control the AH board?
Pure, you are more articulate than I could ever hope to be, but you still use 'person X' and 'person Y' hypotheticals, when you clearly have fellow Litmembers in mind (and actual, not hypothetical, situations).
I feel a certain way but tried to be specific. So, I've riled up a bunch of people. Not surprising. Was I unfair, did I malign some people? To a certain extent.
But some things I stated I stand by, such as
Incomplete as it may be, that's one of my main gripes about the "clique." Anyway, I'm not claiming universality, I'm not claiming THE TRUTH. It's just my own prism.
Gauche points to a spat of his with The Earl as a counterexample to my "nicey-nicey" criticism. It seems I missed that one. But I would probably think it was child's play compared to the tone of, say, the back-and-forth with Pure in the "Underage" thread.
On this, I stand my ground until further evidence is put up.
Now, MG said
"I DO NOT play nice for the sake of playing nice."
Quite right. You don't quite fit this one. Yet, I still feel you are part of the clique. Do you feel otherwise?
What can I tell you? That I don't make much sense? Maybe.
Ogg said
It is difficult to defend against an accusation of being in a clique or a claque.
Almost impossible I'd say. And I understand the frustration and exasperation of the "accused." But, on the other hand, does that invalidate the original gripe (and erase the emotional uneasiness of the griper)?
On other things, I was rightly chastised -- in particular, on my comment about hypocricy and double standards:
Ogg essentially Popeye'ed, 'I am who I am.'
Wildsweetone had a similar statement:
I play nice most of the time because that's what I am.
And Pops said he's like that with everyone.
So, essentially, they protest there's no insincerity, no double standards, just how they are, and they don't need to justify themselves to shitheads like me (I paraphrase).
My bad. Apologies (possibly feeble and inadequate in the eyes of some). My problem is that I judge the behavior and results as I see them, but then make the leap to attribute sinister motivations to the actors.
I think I've said my piece. Maybe others can make more coherent and less offensive statements than I'm able to.
I hate it when people complain about 'other people' in the abstract. Who are all these other people? If you have a bone to pick, you'd better have the guts to be upfront about it -- and take the flack that goes with it.
Case in point: PlumeBleu, you make a big fuss, but when specific people object, you respond 'not you darling,' 'you're the last person I'd accuse' etc. Sweet, but then, who are these mysterious clique members who (indirectly) control the AH board?
Pure, you are more articulate than I could ever hope to be, but you still use 'person X' and 'person Y' hypotheticals, when you clearly have fellow Litmembers in mind (and actual, not hypothetical, situations).
I feel a certain way but tried to be specific. So, I've riled up a bunch of people. Not surprising. Was I unfair, did I malign some people? To a certain extent.
But some things I stated I stand by, such as
Incomplete as it may be, that's one of my main gripes about the "clique." Anyway, I'm not claiming universality, I'm not claiming THE TRUTH. It's just my own prism.
Gauche points to a spat of his with The Earl as a counterexample to my "nicey-nicey" criticism. It seems I missed that one. But I would probably think it was child's play compared to the tone of, say, the back-and-forth with Pure in the "Underage" thread.
On this, I stand my ground until further evidence is put up.
Now, MG said
"I DO NOT play nice for the sake of playing nice."
Quite right. You don't quite fit this one. Yet, I still feel you are part of the clique. Do you feel otherwise?
What can I tell you? That I don't make much sense? Maybe.
Ogg said
It is difficult to defend against an accusation of being in a clique or a claque.
Almost impossible I'd say. And I understand the frustration and exasperation of the "accused." But, on the other hand, does that invalidate the original gripe (and erase the emotional uneasiness of the griper)?
On other things, I was rightly chastised -- in particular, on my comment about hypocricy and double standards:
Ogg essentially Popeye'ed, 'I am who I am.'
Wildsweetone had a similar statement:
I play nice most of the time because that's what I am.
And Pops said he's like that with everyone.
So, essentially, they protest there's no insincerity, no double standards, just how they are, and they don't need to justify themselves to shitheads like me (I paraphrase).
My bad. Apologies (possibly feeble and inadequate in the eyes of some). My problem is that I judge the behavior and results as I see them, but then make the leap to attribute sinister motivations to the actors.
I think I've said my piece. Maybe others can make more coherent and less offensive statements than I'm able to.
Last edited:
wildsweetone
i am what i am
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Posts
- 6,809
obviously i have offended you in some manner, hiddenself.
please explain how.
please explain how.
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
I didn't quite understand your post JJ. I'll read it again before I try to make a full response. One thing did stand out- yes, this has resulted in a very good conversation. You point to the fact that there has been conversation as nullifying all previous suggestion of general unresponsiveness and malaise toward interlopers. I think that is dicto simpliciter. Yes, an actual discussion germinated around my initial post, but don't you think the topic, in itself, is largely responsible for that? I mean, it's almost a command performance in some ways, to refute a claim of cliquery- otherwise wouldn't one in essence validate the charge by ignoring it?
Are conversations like this one common on this board?
Hidden- I stand by my words. Pops and Earl are not the bad guys here. And before anyone even takes exception to the phrase "bad guys"- I mean it in the loosest metaphorical sense- not Nazis, not guys in ten-gallon hats and masks waiting to ambush you in a box canyon, not Rick Santorum.
Also, Hidden- I'm beginning to think of you as more of an instigator than a catalyst, seeing as you can't find common ground on either side. I'm not gunning for any of these people. I just want other people to feel as justified as I do in expressing their opinions- that the forum is open, and their feelings will be respected. People wear their hearts on their sleeves, you know- it can take a huge dose of courage for many people to post here- and it sucks to hurt someone who comes to you like that. It just does.
People often already feel small. Like Rachael says in 'Night of the Hunter'-- "It's a hard world for little things."
Particularly when big things, or egos, are quick to come down.
That's really all I ever meant to say.
Mlle
Are conversations like this one common on this board?
Hidden- I stand by my words. Pops and Earl are not the bad guys here. And before anyone even takes exception to the phrase "bad guys"- I mean it in the loosest metaphorical sense- not Nazis, not guys in ten-gallon hats and masks waiting to ambush you in a box canyon, not Rick Santorum.
Also, Hidden- I'm beginning to think of you as more of an instigator than a catalyst, seeing as you can't find common ground on either side. I'm not gunning for any of these people. I just want other people to feel as justified as I do in expressing their opinions- that the forum is open, and their feelings will be respected. People wear their hearts on their sleeves, you know- it can take a huge dose of courage for many people to post here- and it sucks to hurt someone who comes to you like that. It just does.
People often already feel small. Like Rachael says in 'Night of the Hunter'-- "It's a hard world for little things."
Particularly when big things, or egos, are quick to come down.
That's really all I ever meant to say.
Mlle
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Well, I wasn't keen on a list; wanted more a "if the shoe fits approach" with a few specific examples.
But maybe 'List Two' or 'Core List' will evolve. Here's how, for those on the first list: those who ignore the list or ridicule it, stay. They are the 'hard core', the 'unregenerate' clique-sters.
Those who do a lot of listening and begin the talk a bit with those they haven't before (newcomers, iow), should be dropped; not included on the new 'Core List.' **
It's very simple, all we need to do it watch.
As to criteria; maybe several do essentially the same thing: hidden's {Those who say only nice things to each other} or
Mabeuse {cutesy chin-chuckers} or mine {Those who post trivialites expecting [correctly] to get positive feedback-- the
'i have a pimple on my butt' type postings, iow}
Doesn't it all boil down to "Those who interact only with specified others [core interacting mostly among themselves], ignoring 'outsiders'". Heck, isn't that what's called, omigod, 'exclusion.'
I know, Muffie, it's group self definition, social networking theory, and a number of other sociological concepts. Yes, Baptist choirs, and Inuit hunters do it.
J.
**Perhaps no name will remain. Well, then, QED. There's no clique.
But maybe 'List Two' or 'Core List' will evolve. Here's how, for those on the first list: those who ignore the list or ridicule it, stay. They are the 'hard core', the 'unregenerate' clique-sters.
Those who do a lot of listening and begin the talk a bit with those they haven't before (newcomers, iow), should be dropped; not included on the new 'Core List.' **
It's very simple, all we need to do it watch.
As to criteria; maybe several do essentially the same thing: hidden's {Those who say only nice things to each other} or
Mabeuse {cutesy chin-chuckers} or mine {Those who post trivialites expecting [correctly] to get positive feedback-- the
'i have a pimple on my butt' type postings, iow}
Doesn't it all boil down to "Those who interact only with specified others [core interacting mostly among themselves], ignoring 'outsiders'". Heck, isn't that what's called, omigod, 'exclusion.'
I know, Muffie, it's group self definition, social networking theory, and a number of other sociological concepts. Yes, Baptist choirs, and Inuit hunters do it.
J.
**Perhaps no name will remain. Well, then, QED. There's no clique.
Gabriel_Lee
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Posts
- 392
click click clicketty click clicketty clicketty click click
clique /kli:k/ n. small exclusive group of people; cliquish a: cliquy a. [F]
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English 1985
(I have a dictionary, too)
clique /kli:k/ n. small exclusive group of people; cliquish a: cliquy a. [F]
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English 1985
(I have a dictionary, too)
Last edited:
Gabriel_Lee
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Posts
- 392
Oh no, it isn't!
Just-Legal
Goth Flufflet
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2001
- Posts
- 4,075
MlledeLaPlumeBleu said:
Err, since when did I or Svenska for that matter imply people had to apologise for disliking HP?
The whole HP thing was a lighthearted joke, on my part at least, that started when Laurel for perfectly understandable reasons began to reject HP stories.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just sorry if mine came off so badly...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hello Og,
I'm writing without any personal 'axe', since I don't know you. I want to deal with your points objectively.
You said,
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.
A clique is an objective phenomenon. Several objective criteria have been given. "I respond to those who respond to me." sounds trivial, but it leaves open the question of interactions with 'outsiders,' which I address, below.
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.
There is no 'conspiracy theory', though that's the straw man set up by Math G and Killer M from day one. It's "Hey, my pals, we've got a bunch of bloody nut cases on our hands. Neither is there an attempt to identify despicable or morally corrupt souls.
The hypothesis is that a group of people interact mainly with one another, particularly by way of 'cutesy cheek kissing and chin chucking' or, simply, strongly and invariably complimentary postings. I focused on trivial postings to others resulting in complimentary postings in return. There's no need to look 'behind the scenes.'
It's quite simple to refute. One looks at a 'standard case', say Math Girl, and sees to whom she posts, and the nature of those posts; one looks particularly at all positive posts, and the subset of those which are to outsiders. Let's say those amount to 10%. Then you look at your own posts. If your percentage is vastly different, you're not 'in'. The nature of the postings would also be relevant. [It's perhaps the case that looking at all positive and neutral postings would work just as well: the percentage that involve outsider or newcomers.]
On negative or derisive posts (as a proportion of all such posts by her), let's say, 90% were aimed, by her, at outsiders. Again, compare your own percentage. [In the cases of the invariably 'nice' or 'polite' posters--perhaps yourself-- this area becomes irrelevant.]
Further, outsider's or critic's postings could be looked at. See who responds, beyond the perfunctory 'hello,' with any kind of substance, in any favorable or at least polite and factual manner. Check who does this sort of responding. (These people, are, essentially the 'greeters' --by definition, less cliquish--for the existing set of regular posters.) If it's often you, that counts against the hypothesis. Simply look at this thread.
Since you've outdone yourself in starting complimentary threads, like "Math Girl for Governor", and mutually admiring latrine subthreads with a small number of regulars, that does skew the figures in favor of the hypothesis, but the 'refutation' is still possible, and a straightforward matter.
HS's 'accusation', of course, is an impression, and could be wrong in any individual case. He's not a lunatic, contrary to your suggestion. While one may not want to bother with numbers, in either verifying or falsifying the hypothesis, perhaps his list, the criteria, the approaches above will stimulate useful self-examination.
I don't think anyone's intent is to identify 'bad people,' but perhaps mostly oblivious ones who unwittingly slight those they're not 'tight' with.
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
Well I'm all for 'free speech' but that wasn't exactly the issue. It's just after someone exercises that 'right' that's the issue: are they ignored or derided or their thoughts minimized. To use KM's {?} phrase 'social controls' --e.g., in small towns-- can effectively minimize 'free' expression, even when no laws or even negative sanctions are applied: who'll keep talking when ignored or labelled a mental case? In the US, at present, this is VERY live issue.
Best,
J.
I'm writing without any personal 'axe', since I don't know you. I want to deal with your points objectively.
You said,
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.
A clique is an objective phenomenon. Several objective criteria have been given. "I respond to those who respond to me." sounds trivial, but it leaves open the question of interactions with 'outsiders,' which I address, below.
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.
There is no 'conspiracy theory', though that's the straw man set up by Math G and Killer M from day one. It's "Hey, my pals, we've got a bunch of bloody nut cases on our hands. Neither is there an attempt to identify despicable or morally corrupt souls.
The hypothesis is that a group of people interact mainly with one another, particularly by way of 'cutesy cheek kissing and chin chucking' or, simply, strongly and invariably complimentary postings. I focused on trivial postings to others resulting in complimentary postings in return. There's no need to look 'behind the scenes.'
It's quite simple to refute. One looks at a 'standard case', say Math Girl, and sees to whom she posts, and the nature of those posts; one looks particularly at all positive posts, and the subset of those which are to outsiders. Let's say those amount to 10%. Then you look at your own posts. If your percentage is vastly different, you're not 'in'. The nature of the postings would also be relevant. [It's perhaps the case that looking at all positive and neutral postings would work just as well: the percentage that involve outsider or newcomers.]
On negative or derisive posts (as a proportion of all such posts by her), let's say, 90% were aimed, by her, at outsiders. Again, compare your own percentage. [In the cases of the invariably 'nice' or 'polite' posters--perhaps yourself-- this area becomes irrelevant.]
Further, outsider's or critic's postings could be looked at. See who responds, beyond the perfunctory 'hello,' with any kind of substance, in any favorable or at least polite and factual manner. Check who does this sort of responding. (These people, are, essentially the 'greeters' --by definition, less cliquish--for the existing set of regular posters.) If it's often you, that counts against the hypothesis. Simply look at this thread.
Since you've outdone yourself in starting complimentary threads, like "Math Girl for Governor", and mutually admiring latrine subthreads with a small number of regulars, that does skew the figures in favor of the hypothesis, but the 'refutation' is still possible, and a straightforward matter.
HS's 'accusation', of course, is an impression, and could be wrong in any individual case. He's not a lunatic, contrary to your suggestion. While one may not want to bother with numbers, in either verifying or falsifying the hypothesis, perhaps his list, the criteria, the approaches above will stimulate useful self-examination.
I don't think anyone's intent is to identify 'bad people,' but perhaps mostly oblivious ones who unwittingly slight those they're not 'tight' with.
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
Well I'm all for 'free speech' but that wasn't exactly the issue. It's just after someone exercises that 'right' that's the issue: are they ignored or derided or their thoughts minimized. To use KM's {?} phrase 'social controls' --e.g., in small towns-- can effectively minimize 'free' expression, even when no laws or even negative sanctions are applied: who'll keep talking when ignored or labelled a mental case? In the US, at present, this is VERY live issue.
Best,
J.
Last edited:
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Pure said:
I have been ignored, derided and had my thoughts minimised on occasions. Why not? I am not, and do not claim to be, infallible. I do not hold a grudge against anyone who has ignored, derided or minimised my contributions. Why should I? The derision or minimisation may be justified in the view of the individual.
Being ignored is easy to deal with. Before I started submitting stories to Literotica they were ignored on Yahoo. Now probably a large percentage of readers on Literotica still ignore my stories but a few individuals seem to like or dislike some of them and tell me why they do. That compensates for the majority who "ignore" me.
I have never labelled anyone a mental case. Perhaps the US has a different definition? In this cpuntry free speech is just that. There are very few limitations except inciting racial hatred.
If I say things that someone else objects to they can respond or ignore or minimise.
Og
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
I like being cliqued (I seriously never considered that I was in a clique before this). I like being liked. Who doesn't? Even more I like having my ego stroked, by having my comments commented upon and my questions answered.
There are only two people who like this more than me, and believe me I like it a hell of a lot.
The Blue Pen knows exactly what I'm talking about (don't know about pure, in fact I don't know anything about Pure) when I say that. Applause: Better than sex.
I think this is probably the official end of this 'discussion'
The Blue Pen; it can take a huge dose of courage for many people to post here- and it sucks to hurt someone who comes to you like that. It just does.
That's really all I ever meant to say.
(Tell that to a certain person who's name you can't mention.)
Pure has now decided to 'hold up for example' specific people, his 'arguements' are changing slant and his logic is, if not circular, then definitely pear shaped.
GL has seen this. Cahab has. (Don't take that as an invitation to clique though)
Now where does this put me in the clique? At the head? Exteriorised omnipotent? Its all bollocks anyway.
By the way HS.
Gauche points to a spat of his with The Earl as a counterexample to my "nicey-nicey" criticism. It seems I missed that one. But I would probably think it was child's play compared to the tone of, say, the back-and-forth with Pure in the "Underage" thread.
Try and find it, it's a beauty, The "Underage" thread is nothing in comparison, personal from beginning to end, unlike the "U-A" thing which resulted from lost causes and purely from mischief on my part. Ask TheEarl.
Clique me up Scotty.
Gauche
There are only two people who like this more than me, and believe me I like it a hell of a lot.
The Blue Pen knows exactly what I'm talking about (don't know about pure, in fact I don't know anything about Pure) when I say that. Applause: Better than sex.
I think this is probably the official end of this 'discussion'
The Blue Pen; it can take a huge dose of courage for many people to post here- and it sucks to hurt someone who comes to you like that. It just does.
That's really all I ever meant to say.
(Tell that to a certain person who's name you can't mention.)
Pure has now decided to 'hold up for example' specific people, his 'arguements' are changing slant and his logic is, if not circular, then definitely pear shaped.
GL has seen this. Cahab has. (Don't take that as an invitation to clique though)
Now where does this put me in the clique? At the head? Exteriorised omnipotent? Its all bollocks anyway.
By the way HS.
Gauche points to a spat of his with The Earl as a counterexample to my "nicey-nicey" criticism. It seems I missed that one. But I would probably think it was child's play compared to the tone of, say, the back-and-forth with Pure in the "Underage" thread.
Try and find it, it's a beauty, The "Underage" thread is nothing in comparison, personal from beginning to end, unlike the "U-A" thing which resulted from lost causes and purely from mischief on my part. Ask TheEarl.
Clique me up Scotty.
Gauche
