Lootequiette: Pmann's Totally Original/Unaffiliated Thread

[Lord Pmann]

You, while not attacking in Trump style, were engaging in a Trumpian style tactic of discussing Woody without knowing Woody’s patterns or behaviors with a group of people who were already sick of his shit.

I appreciate your response and none of it is seen as an attack.

I don't see how that anything I did was Trumpian; I simply responded to the content of a user's post, while being very clear I was neutral on the poster. One's previous history with a poster doesn't change the validity of a claim, if examined at face value. Several times I asked what the OP said and I was just told to "do my homework". The only thing that was explained was that he came in the thread hot, called people an asshole and made women feel uncomfortable with his jokes.

So I went and looked at it.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/sex-shenanigans.1589110/page-4812#post-99087871

He called YOU an asshole because your joke made a lady feel uncomfortable. It was a misunderstanding and you apologized. But it was your comment that was perceived as the asshole comment. Now there may be other instances, as I didn't read every single post. But this was referenced as though it was Woody's snafu. It was yours.

Again, whether Woody is a stand up guy or a dick is irrelevant to the claim. This is a logical fallacy called Motte and Bailey. You took a claim "Woody makes women uncomfortable" and used that to refute his claim that the PG is cliquey.

Hell doesn’t exist, so saying someone is going there is a non-starter

Telling someone to go to hell, whether it exists or not, is still a dick move. If I tell you I hope you get fucked to death by a unicorn, it is still a hateful comment, especially when the offense is simply having a dissenting opinion or agreeing with someone you do not like. It is dismissive and rude, especially to a really lovely person. That is the epitome of Trumpian behaviour.

They key element of cliquish behavior that separates it from merely people who are friendly is that they discourage outsiders entering. A few of the voices that evening would have been considered outsiders as recently as this spring. During that discussion, I asked for examples of actual behavior that was discouraging of outsiders who approached in a good faith manner, not in either a creepy manner or trolling. Again, if you have examples, I’m happy to hear them.

Here are a few:

1. Using the term "Trumpian" or using the term Trump as a slight literally excludes about 40+% or so of the American population. It's also a poor tactic as it is a "showstopper" argument technique. Throw that word out and you have the people on your side agree with you and people on the other side feel isolated. And I'm not a Trump fan, so my feelings are not hurt at all by the comment, but I am aware of the reality of its use.

2. Swarming various threads with your posting style, regardless of the current thread culture. Your behaviours and desire to interact with your group of friends supercede the culture of whatever thread you're in. It comes off as, "We do not care how you all normally interact in this thread, this is how we do it and we will proceed that way regardless of how it diverts the thread." I'm guilty of this myself at times.

3. Chastising a guy who is relatively new for making uncomfortable jokes when you're literally guilty of the same exact thing. Rules for thee, not for me.

And on that note, I've been guilty of making jokes in poor taste, too. I've apologized many times for things I've said.

4. You are selective about the bad behaviour you highlight. Bogey comes in the thread and acts like a grumpy asshole. Several of you were quick to call out Photogirl for past behaviours. But not a single person took a moment to say, "Hey bogey, how about you not be a dick and engage in conversation like an adult."

5. Despite numerous people saying that they've felt the behaviour is cliquish, they were told that it wasn't. This is a matter of perception. Some people are going to feel that it's cliquish and others might feel that it's not. But when you had several people saying they felt isolated and left out at times, several were dismissive of that because it wasn't their experience. At best it's dismissive. And worst it's gaslighting. It's more on the dismissive end to me, as I don't think most have ill intent.

Those are a few examples, some of which I'm guilty. But I recognize that it happens and that it can be isolating. I don't deny that this is happening. Cliquish behaviour does not have to be intentional. It merely has to isolate.

I’m willing to have the discussion with someone mature enough to have the discussion, as we are having now. Woody was the wrong champion for that discussion. His insistence that he hadn’t made any untoward posts reflected his inability to understand his behavior and how it impacted how people responded to him.

I would say the same holds true for you. The insistence that it isn't isolating, despite being told by several that it is... well that is the same behaviour youre condemning.

I do appreciate you engaging in it. Many times along my time at Lit I've been an asshole or cut with my words. Sometimes I felt it was necessary. Sometimes I feel I was completely wrong. Your response was thought out and I hope I provided some clear examples, albeit in a manner that is lengthier than you prefer. I apologize for the girth.

 

[Love_Is_Blonde]

There was a lot to read through and I think this is such an interesting topic. Before I start in on this, I will say that I won’t be posting my boobs so you might want to stop reading here.

A lot of the talk centered around the culture of Lit. Are there cliques? Is it inclusive?

Cliques— groups of people who tend to seek only each other out and don’t really socialize with others.

Are there cliques here?… sure? Are there cliques at work? School? Teams? Church groups? Anywhere where people gather regularly and get to know one another and who have similar interests? But the difference between a clique in person and a clique online is that online, I feel it’s a bit harder to break in to already established groups so it feels even more exclusionary.

In person, you can go and attend a meeting and be physically present in the room, and people see you and can take notice of you, and you have an easier time joining said clique. Online, you may be in the thread and engaged, but people don’t know that, and when everyone is firing comments into the same conversation, and the thread is moving at lightning speed. It’s so easy to get left in the dust. So, for someone who already doesn’t have a firm foothold in the established group, this makes them (me) feel like I don’t fit in, or what I’m saying isn’t appreciated, when actually, the others are just enjoying their conversation and not meaning to exclude anyone.

But is someone being excluded? Yes. Is it malicious? No. Not in that instance.

There are definitely other examples of times when it does get petty and past arguments arise and then those can get purposefully exclusionary. But I don’t see that happen as often. However I can be oblivious so this is all just my opinion.

* hands everyone a huge grain of salt*

So today's topic extends just a little further on that discussion.

What do you like about Lit's culture?

I like talking about random topics like music, baseball, sex, memes, or someone to just vent. I like seeing those gems of wisdom or kindness that are posted when I am not expecting to see them but when I desperately needed to see a friendly note. Have you ever logged on when you are feeling down and received a message or seen a post that completely turned your day around? Like, wow, someone on another continent remembered that I was going to have a difficult week and they took the time to leave me a quick note?? That. That is huge. And gives me faith.

Also, there are some very VERY sexy people and posts and stories and holy hell I love that and I’m here for those too. But from afar.

Also, sometimes I can’t sleep and it’s nice to have a place to go to escape my thoughts. I can come here and read about anything when I probably should be trying to get back to sleep.

What do you dislike?

I dislike that it’s easy to forget that we are all multifaceted and so we are less accepting and less patient with each other. I think that there are plenty of people here who’ve had arguments and have labeled each other as “insert negative adjective here”, and that’s that. They close the door on listening to that person or that they have any credibility at all. Closed-mindedness is rampant and it makes for a mean-spirited environment. I’ve had bad days/weeks where I’ve been in a bad mood and posted bleh things, but that isn’t my whole personality. But- that’s part of Lit culture. Sometimes that’s all someone will see of me- and so I don’t like that part of Lit. It’s hard to see the whole person.

Do you feel like an insider or an outsider?

I usually feel like an outsider. I’ve had times where I’ve had a few good friends that I post with, but I’ve never been a part of a bunch of groups off Lit or anything like that. I originally joined Lit to try and make female friends here but I found that was pretty tough, again because those groups were already established, not bc of any malicious intent.

What would you change?

Hmm somehow controlling if someone is not really who they say they are? Someone using fake pictures off of the internet? Or someone who keeps returning over and over who is harassing people.

Do you feel that you behave in a manner consistent with how you wish Lit would be?

I think so

 

[Bry1313]

He called YOU an asshole because your joke made a lady feel uncomfortable. It was a misunderstanding and you apologized. But it was your comment that was perceived as the asshole comment. Now there may be other instances, as I didn't read every single post. But this was referenced as though it was Woody's snafu. It was yours.

Did you see the origin of the joke, it was a gentle poke at both of us posting the meme on the same page. Immediately upon seeing she felt bad an apology and context were given. It was unseemly for someone else to make the “giant asshole” statement, especially given your comments below on decorum.

Again, whether Woody is a stand up guy or a dick is irrelevant to the claim. This is a logical fallacy called Motte and Bailey. You took a claim "Woody makes women uncomfortable" and used that to refute his claim that the PG is cliquey.

Often you reference acquaintances here, would you find it annoying if someone brayed “you are cliquey” when you’d referenced said acquaintances especially after they’d been trailing you for a bit making uncomfortable jokes? This is especially notable when your Lit character implies a hierarchy with you as Lord and the rest of Lit are your serfs. Me being a loyal American, I have a natural aversion to royalty and find that distatstefuk, yet I don’t find you cliquey, because you aren’t deliberately exclusionary, even if your non traditional approach makes much of your work here not very approachable. While there may have been a larger point, I just found his behavior rude and pointed out that friends don’t equal cliques.

Telling someone to go to hell, whether it exists or not, is still a dick move. If I tell you I hope you get fucked to death by a unicorn, it is still a hateful comment, especially when the offense is simply having a dissenting opinion or agreeing with someone you do not like. It is dismissive and rude, especially to a really lovely person. That is the epitome of Trumpian behaviour.

I made a joke about hell not existing, it landed with a thud. That said I do find hell as real as a unicorn fucking me to death, which on its surface is actually a funny image.

2. Swarming various threads with your posting style, regardless of the current thread culture. Your behaviours and desire to interact with your group of friends supercede the culture of whatever thread you're in. It comes off as, "We do not care how you all normally interact in this thread, this is how we do it and we will proceed that way regardless of how it diverts the thread." I'm guilty of this myself at times.

I don’t know that there was an intentional swarm that took place. It began as a three person conversation, between Tig, myself and Woody. Many jumped in, including yourself who was a particularly active participant in the discussion. Would you consider your role as part of the swarm or was it only those who took the opposite position of Woody that were swarming and those who sided with Woody we’re on the side of decency?

3. Chastising a guy who is relatively new for making uncomfortable jokes when you're literally guilty of the same exact thing. Rules for thee, not for me.

And on that note, I've been guilty of making jokes in poor taste, too. I've apologized many times for things I've said.

I’m happy to take crap if I make a joke that makes someone uncomfortable. As one can see, there was an explicit apology to Kitty when she didn’t appreciate my tease. The other party has shown no remorse for making others uncomfortable. I’ve noted this point and reject it, because the behaviors are not parallel.

4. You are selective about the bad behaviour you highlight. Bogey comes in the thread and acts like a grumpy asshole. Several of you were quick to call out Photogirl for past behaviours. But not a single person took a moment to say, "Hey bogey, how about you not be a dick and engage in conversation like an adult."

The discussion concerning Photogirl in this instance was because she was making veiled and hints at behaviors of select people and painting her self as the victim. As the subject of 20 some poems attacking everything about my character in one of her threads, and also choosing never to respond to those, it seemed inappropriate of her to bring those same items to a larger discussion. At some point one tires of being the subject of cryptic innuendo and accusations.

5. Despite numerous people saying that they've felt the behaviour is cliquish, they were told that it wasn't. This is a matter of perception. Some people are going to feel that it's cliquish and others might feel that it's not. But when you had several people saying they felt isolated and left out at times, several were dismissive of that because it wasn't their experience. At best it's dismissive. And worst it's gaslighting. It's more on the dismissive end to me, as I don't think most have ill intent.

Those are a few examples, some of which I'm guilty. But I recognize that it happens and that it can be isolating. I don't deny that this is happening. Cliquish behaviour does not have to be intentional. It merely has to isolate.

I still see veiled statements about cliquish behavior, but I’m not seeing actual exclusionary behavior. The mere existence of shared jokes is not exclusionary. There are friend groups here that I don’t know how to join into, but I wouldn’t accuse them of being cliquish just because I don’t know the entry point. Am I on the outside of 90% of what goes on here? I am, but it’s not because of cliques, it’s because I’m awkward and definitely an acquired taste. It’s not other people’s fault that I haven’t made closer relationships with them.

I would say the same holds true for you. The insistence that it isn't isolating, despite being told by several that it is... well that is the same behaviour youre condemning.

I do appreciate you engaging in it. Many times along my time at Lit I've been an asshole or cut with my words. Sometimes I felt it was necessary. Sometimes I feel I was completely wrong. Your response was thought out and I hope I provided some clear examples, albeit in a manner that is lengthier than you prefer. I apologize for the girth.

One can describe my mere existence as isolating but honestly I don’t see it. If someone approaches me, I’m rarely silent and never ignore them, I’m just rarely approached. (Looks at incredibly dusty PM box). Im sympathetic that there are weird subcultures in Lit that can be confusing and difficult to figure out a way in, but cliquish, again, implies behavior to exclude. I very rarely see that behavior. Again, I’m empathetic how hard it is to find your people here, I’ve found a few people and sure they are vocal and I’m certainly annoying, but again, I’d challenge anyone to say I’ve rejected them outright without giving them a chance, and anyone else that was accused of cliquish behavior has not rejected anyone out of the blue as well.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Before I start in on this, I will say that I won’t be posting my boobs so you might want to stop reading here.

My PMs are open.

 

[crazychemgirl]

My PMs are open.

Your PMs are so slutty … they never close

 

[RosewoodTulip]

What do you like about Lit's culture?

I like that Lit is a real melting pot of different people, cultures, opinions. Most people are kind, funny and supportive. It's done a hell of a lot for my confidence while I've been here too.

What do you dislike?

Alts. Trolls. Deceit.
Why create a fake person for engagement. Why trick people into caring about you? Why show up with the express purpose of bringing others down.

Do you feel like an insider or an outsider?

I'm an outsider by choice. I tried being in the middle of things, couldn't handle it, and had to step back. I like to observe rather than be seen.

What would you change?

The ability to properly block people rather than ignore them for one. Why should some shitty person still have full access to my posts. It feels like a punishment for the wrong person.

Do you feel that you behave in a manner consistent with how you wish Lit would be?

I always try to be kind first and foremost. That's what I wish from the people who want to interact with me too. I keep myself out of the way when things kick off and never go on the offensive unless I feel it's necessary - eg when I need to defend someone.


I have no idea what has been going on here lately. I've had covid and other shit to deal with and I have no interest in arguing for the sake of it.
I will say, in regards to the subject of clique, that S&S feels like it's own place sometimes, separate from the main PG. When I was there I so desperately wanted to be part of it, to be tagged in the jokes and included with the fun but it didn't happen and it hurt for a while as I thought I wasn't good enough. I pulled away from a lot of the people there and tbh none of them noticed.
But I don't have any bad feelings towards it now. The people who post there regularly love it and I'm glad they have that community. I just wish I'd still kept in touch with some of you.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

My experience of this and other forums I've been a part of in the past is that some people seem to think that the basic rules of social interaction don't apply on forums when they do.

If someone saw a group of friends sat around a table in a bar chatting and having fun and decided to approach them in an overly familiar way like they had always been part of the group and just sat themselves at the table being inappropriate and even outright rude, then you would fully expect that person to not exactly be welcomed with open arms without suggesting they were being a clique.

Some threads like S&S are mostly populated with people who have got to know each other well, have their own running jokes about each other and a shared sense of humour. When new people arrive join in and contribute in a way that shows they have got the measure of the group and their vibe they are welcomed with open arms and new friendships are made.

Someone swaggering in like they own the place and then getting the hump because they aren't immediately welcomed for it isn't a group being exclusionary. That's not how social interaction works anywhere.

 

[MissN]

Delurking.

This is especially notable when your Lit character implies a hierarchy with you as Lord and the rest of Lit are your serfs.

It was Laurel, the site owner who named him Lord Pmann years and years ago when he posted regularly on the GB. She was a regular poster also.

The S&S gang invaded the Name A lister thread with tagging their friend over and over. When BFG commented on it you Bry said she was killing the fun. Thus the Tag a lister thread was created.
Back to lurking I go.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Delurking.

It was Laurel, the site owner who named him Lord Pmann years and years ago when he posted regularly on the GB. She was a regular poster also.

The S&S gang invaded the Name A lister thread with tagging their friend over and over. When BFG commented on it you Bry said she was killing the fun. Thus the Tag a lister thread was created.
Back to lurking I go.

Who dis?!?!

 

[Bry1313]

Delurking.

It was Laurel, the site owner who named him Lord Pmann years and years ago when he posted regularly on the GB. She was a regular poster also.

The S&S gang invaded the Name A lister thread with tagging their friend over and over. When BFG commented on it you Bry said she was killing the fun. Thus the Tag a lister thread was created.
Back to lurking I go.

1) it’s wonderful he was given the name by someone else rather than self given. He does play up his lord status and speaks often (I know it’s a joking tone, but it seems people don’t often get jokes), so that character and living it could be perceived as exclusionary.

2) yes, a joke was made at one person’s expense while they were offline, but the theme of the thread was adhered too, a litster was named, and a questioned ask. What was different was volume, because, yeah, volume was the intent. When the thread creator expressed displeasure. A less serious version of that was created, because clowns. I have been judged publicly on more than one occasion by the person who I said was killing the fun, mine was in jest to her, the comments made by her in the past to me, seemed more pointed, but maybe she was in jest to me as well.

3) now I definitely feel I’m being watched because of a deep cut.

 

[barefootgirl69]

1) it’s wonderful he was given the name by someone else rather than self given. He does play up his lord status and speaks often (I know it’s a joking tone, but it seems people don’t often get jokes), so that character and living it could be perceived as exclusionary.

2) yes, a joke was made at one person’s expense while they were offline, but the theme of the thread was adhered too, a litster was named, and a questioned ask. What was different was volume, because, yeah, volume was the intent. When the thread creator expressed displeasure. A less serious version of that was created, because clowns. I have been judged publicly on more than one occasion by the person who I said was killing the fun, mine was in jest to her, the comments made by her in the past to me, seemed more pointed, but maybe she was in jest to me as well.

3) now I definitely feel I’m being watched because of a deep cut.

It was derailing a thread by naming one person, definitely NOT the spirit of the thread. Personally, IDGAF what you do, just don't derail threads - which is against forum rules. Take it up with Laurel if you don't like it.

 

[aussiegeekygal]

now I definitely feel I’m being watched because of a deep cut.

Everyone is being watched here.

It's performance art

 

[Bry1313]

It was derailing a thread by naming one person, definitely NOT the spirit of the thread. Personally, IDGAF what you do, just don't derail threads - which is against forum rules. Take it up with Laurel if you don't like it.

you reported posts, and it was deemed we didn’t violate the rules. I’ve not posted in your thread once since then. I’m not gonna escalate an issue that doesn’t require escalation, Laurel has better things to do than worry about an issue from when snow was falling. I apologize that you were upset by something that was felt to be relatively harmless but clearly wasn’t.

 

[aussiegeekygal]

I wonder if the newbs even know who laurel is?

*Shudders*

 

[crazychemgirl]

Delurking.

It was Laurel, the site owner who named him Lord Pmann years and years ago when he posted regularly on the GB. She was a regular poster also.

The S&S gang invaded the Name A lister thread with tagging their friend over and over. When BFG commented on it you Bry said she was killing the fun. Thus the Tag a lister thread was created.
Back to lurking I go.

Creepy alts are creeps


Just sayin

 

[crazychemgirl]

My experience of this and other forums I've been a part of in the past is that some people seem to think that the basic rules of social interaction don't apply on forums when they do.

If someone saw a group of friends sat around a table in a bar chatting and having fun and decided to approach them in an overly familiar way like they had always been part of the group and just sat themselves at the table being inappropriate and even outright rude, then you would fully expect that person to not exactly be welcomed with open arms without suggesting they were being a clique.

Some threads like S&S are mostly populated with people who have got to know each other well, have their own running jokes about each other and a shared sense of humour. When new people arrive join in and contribute in a way that shows they have got the measure of the group and their vibe they are welcomed with open arms and new friendships are made.

Someone swaggering in like they own the place and then getting the hump because they aren't immediately welcomed for it isn't a group being exclusionary. That's not how social interaction works anywhere.

This is one of my favourite posts today.

 

[Bry1313]

Creepy alts are creeps


Just sayin

Yeah, not sure if that was from someone hiding their regular identity or if they are a voyeur. Either way, anonymous lurking is NMK.

 

[aussiegeekygal]

I think it's a good reminder that what you see on the surface here is MAYBE 20% of what's going on...

There's a lot of shit that has gone down over the years

 

[Bry1313]

My experience of this and other forums I've been a part of in the past is that some people seem to think that the basic rules of social interaction don't apply on forums when they do.

If someone saw a group of friends sat around a table in a bar chatting and having fun and decided to approach them in an overly familiar way like they had always been part of the group and just sat themselves at the table being inappropriate and even outright rude, then you would fully expect that person to not exactly be welcomed with open arms without suggesting they were being a clique.

Some threads like S&S are mostly populated with people who have got to know each other well, have their own running jokes about each other and a shared sense of humour. When new people arrive join in and contribute in a way that shows they have got the measure of the group and their vibe they are welcomed with open arms and new friendships are made.

Someone swaggering in like they own the place and then getting the hump because they aren't immediately welcomed for it isn't a group being exclusionary. That's not how social interaction works anywhere.

How are you so much better at communicating my thoughts than I am?

 

[crazychemgirl]

How are you so much better at communicating my thoughts than I am?

It’s just facts … lol


But he’s not wrong … some threads have their naturally occurring friend groups and are 100% welcoming to new people if you know how to read the vibe ..,

But from the interactions I’ve had over the years IRL with awkward AF people I know there’s a good portion of people who have no idea how to interact socially

 

[Bry1313]

I have no idea what has been going on here lately. I've had covid and other shit to deal with and I have no interest in arguing for the sake of it.
I will say, in regards to the subject of clique, that S&S feels like it's own place sometimes, separate from the main PG. When I was there I so desperately wanted to be part of it, to be tagged in the jokes and included with the fun but it didn't happen and it hurt for a while as I thought I wasn't good enough. I pulled away from a lot of the people there and tbh none of them noticed.
But I don't have any bad feelings towards it now. The people who post there regularly love it and I'm glad they have that community. I just wish I'd still kept in touch with some of you.

I was in the middle of the cock talk derailment and still not sure how a couple back and forths nuked a thread for a day but it did.

You are very fun and liked everywhere I’ve seen you post, definitely more broadly welcome than I am.

Such is the nature of any thread, that when one isn’t present, they don’t get referenced. Unless a couple of people have an annoying idea. When I’m gone on vacation or something, my alerts drop to zero very quickly; and that’s ok.

Just know you are a positive addition in any thread you jump into.

 

[crazychemgirl]

I like that Lit is a real melting pot of different people, cultures, opinions. Most people are kind, funny and supportive. It's done a hell of a lot for my confidence while I've been here too.

Alts. Trolls. Deceit.
Why create a fake person for engagement. Why trick people into caring about you? Why show up with the express purpose of bringing others down.

I'm an outsider by choice. I tried being in the middle of things, couldn't handle it, and had to step back. I like to observe rather than be seen.

The ability to properly block people rather than ignore them for one. Why should some shitty person still have full access to my posts. It feels like a punishment for the wrong person.

I always try to be kind first and foremost. That's what I wish from the people who want to interact with me too. I keep myself out of the way when things kick off and never go on the offensive unless I feel it's necessary - eg when I need to defend someone.


I have no idea what has been going on here lately. I've had covid and other shit to deal with and I have no interest in arguing for the sake of it.
I will say, in regards to the subject of clique, that S&S feels like it's own place sometimes, separate from the main PG. When I was there I so desperately wanted to be part of it, to be tagged in the jokes and included with the fun but it didn't happen and it hurt for a while as I thought I wasn't good enough. I pulled away from a lot of the people there and tbh none of them noticed.
But I don't have any bad feelings towards it now. The people who post there regularly love it and I'm glad they have that community. I just wish I'd still kept in touch with some of you.

Omg Rosie!!!!! I love you so much and you are such a fun addition to any thread!!

I missed you when you stopped posting to be honest … but it seemed like you guys had your UK thread and that’s where you all preferred to hang out … probably cuz of the similar time zone .. so I didn’t think it was cuz you didn’t feel a part of S&S … I’m so sorry you felt that way!!!

 

[aussiegeekygal]

nuked a thread for a day

To be fair, it's been several. It started on Saturday and is still carrying on as if it's S&S

 

[Bry1313]

To be fair, it's been several. It started on Saturday and is still carrying on as if it's S&S

I’ve broken away so if I don’t see it, it’s not happening in my little goldfish brain

 

[Donotrustanybody]

I would like to address something from the other night. Before I say it, I want to be clear it isn't an attack. You were not particularly snarky to me or anything, so this is just a discussion.

I think the other night is a good example of what could be considered as cliquish. Here is my reasoning.

The discussion started out as talking about the existence of cliques. I think there was a pretty directed comment from Woody towards the SnS group, accusing them of being cliquey. A number of people from SnS came into the thread, all denying the existence of cliquish behaviour in SnS. These are people that normally don't interact in that thread (with some exceptions like Tig, who is a regular poster there). And the idea that cliquish behaviour could exist was just considered outlandish and even labeled as "bullshit". Bogey went as far as to compare me to Trump and say I am talking out of my ass for having a rather calm and collected conversation. He even said someone was going to hell for agreeing with my opinion.

Furthermore, Cock Talk turned into a SnS style thread with rapid fire posting, something not typical of that thread. People are welcome to talk, as it is an open forum and things ebb and flow. But one of your complaints about Woody was he came in hot and didn't read the room or culture of the thread. I think the same could be said for some of your behaviours.

So there is a bit of irony in that the people claiming cliquish behaviour doesn't exist swarmed into a thread where they don't normally interact to vehemently deny the existence of groupthink and her mentality. Every one from that group held the party line and wouldn't even consider the possibility. Then, some attacks were thrown out there for no real reason.

To be clear, I have never felt unwelcome in SnS and there are several of the posters in the group to which I am referring that I like and I think are kind/interesting/etc. But rather than bury your heads in the sand, simply look at how everyone held the line. Some were willing to discuss. But very few actually afforded the possibility that what Woody said was true.

I reiterate that this isn't an attack, just some pedantic commentary

I believe what started it was, a litster from that group saying,

A group of ladies ( in a private group chat ) were considering putting a spreadsheet of mens performances based on their experience with these men. Pretty much sharing their private relationships to other women, so they can make a performance chart or grade the guys, to see who they might want to hook up with.

That post was called Cliquey