New Pit rule? Must Pit VCO3 every month?

The BBQ Pit
101

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Is that another one of these cliques? “Those who have not experienced a timeout” :wink:

whole bean, as one of the **Giants **fans, I do not see how posting enough about the **Giants ** to be recognized by some posters as a **Giants ** along with several other posters makes us a clique. It seems by your definition and group that commonly posts on a specific subject is a clique instead of just an inexact group that shares a common interest.

I can almost see the MMP’ers as a clique, but rather than being exclusionary, they are the most welcoming of groups and so do not seem to meet the definition of clique I have used in the past.

As far as VCO3, sometimes I like his posts and sometimes he appears to be a raging idiot. I don’t want to see him banned and the monthly pittings seem to be effective enough. Kind of the same way I feel about **Liberal ** in fact. They both tend to earn the pittings they get. They both seem to contribute to the board at other times.

Jim
ETA:
Main Entry: clique
Pronunciation: 'klEk, 'klik
Function: noun
Etymology: French
: a narrow **exclusive ** circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes
[/QUOTE]

Reread my posts, Jim. I have taken into account the exclusive nature of a clique.

See:
[QUOTE=whole bean at post # 87 ]
To the extent that by treating the people you like “better” than others **you de facto exclude ** those you don’t like or simply don’t even recognize (generally by simply ignoring them, but sometimes by even being hostile toward them), it is exactly what a clique is.

Here’s what the good folks at M-W.com have to say:

clique
Function: noun
Etymology: French
a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes

What did you think it meant?
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
That’s why I answered to tdn thusly:

[QUOTE=whole bean at post # 92]
I don’t know. That’s why I prefaced my comments with “[t]o the extent” (your common interest binds you and your familiarity with one another acts to exclude others from joining in ). Still, the absence a Giants clique does not mean the absence of cliques. The Dian Fossey line was throwaway, am I really going to have to document one before you’ll accept a cliques existence on the SDMB.
[/QUOTE]
(parens. mine quoting referenced passage)

If your Giants thread in no way excludes others, cool. As I’ve also said:
[QUOTE=whole bean at post # 92]
the absence a Giants clique does not mean the absence of cliques
[/QUOTE]

102

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
ETA: Merriam Webster’s
Main Entry: **clique **
Pronunciation: 'klEk, 'klik Function: noun Etymology: French
: a narrow **exclusive ** circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes
[/QUOTE]
Well, when bolding the “exclusive” part of the definition, I guess my understanding doesn’t stand up. Color me corrected.

Maybe this is just because I was never a member of any real cliques before. :smiley:

And by that definition I am still not.

Drats.

103

[QUOTE=whole bean]
Reread my posts, Jim. I have taken into account the exclusive nature of a clique.

See: (emphasis mine)
That’s why I answered to tdn thusly:
(parens. mine quoting referenced passage)

If your Giants thread in no way excludes others, cool. As I’ve also said:
[/QUOTE]

My interpretation of your theory then is as follows:
There are many posters I like a lot and some I dislike. I might like them as they are fellow Tolkien fans or Baseball fans or Jersey residents :wink: or Greens. If they say something, I think is dumb, I am much more likely to let it pass than if the poster is not familiar to me or someone I actually dislike.

If I am at all accurate in my portrayal of your theory, I believe you are applying the word “Clique” to what I would call a group of on-line friends. As I and apparently many others instead think of cliques as per the definition I posted, I think this would be the main reason why many posters are denying the common existence of cliques on the dope.

Is this a fair summary? Am I still missing a vital point?

Jim

104

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Snort No. I’m just as plagued by timeouts as anyone. I just don’t whine about it.
[/QUOTE]
[…shrug…] Boast is just the other side of the whine coin.

105

Wait, what are we discussing here again? VC03’s presence on the board, judgments on his possible trollitude, cliques, or all of the above?

Anyway, I think he’s a friendly yet blunt guy who is knowledgeable about music. When he gets the juices flowing, he has a distinct tendency to fly off the deep end. I think the pittings of him are mostly justified, but that he’s not a troll. Naive and tactless at times, but no troll. He’s usually very kind and supportive, and his pit-inducing posts are often high-larious, so I’m willing to overlook his faults and not get my digital panties in a bunch.

106

[QUOTE=bigbabysweets2000]
New Pit rule? Must Pit VCO3 every month?
[/QUOTE]
Meh. VCO3 starts a pit thread once a month so it sorta balances out. :wink:

107

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
My interpretation of your theory then is as follows:
There are many posters I like a lot and some I dislike. I might like them as they are fellow Tolkien fans or Baseball fans or Jersey residents :wink: or Greens. If they say something, I think is dumb, I am much more likely to let it pass than if the poster is not familiar to me or someone I actually dislike.

If I am at all accurate in my portrayal of your theory, I believe you are applying the word “Clique” to what I would call a group of on-line friends. As I and apparently many others instead think of cliques as per the definition I posted, I think this would be the main reason why many posters are denying the common existence of cliques on the dope.

Is this a fair summary? Am I still missing a vital point?

Jim
[/QUOTE]

I hate to continue this hijack that I am unfortuinately responsible for – sorry to the OP – but here goes.

First, it’s not a theory. It’s certainly not a theory about you or your on-line friendships. It’s also not a theory regarding the presence of cliques on the SDMB- I am not attempting to explain anyting. I have, I believe, observed cliques here. You might or might not be in one, I don’t know. It’s my impression that others are and that cliques exist here.

Second, nothing I’ve seen suggests that exclusivity, as a group characteristic, has to be arbitrary or intentional for a group to be defined as a clique. To the extent that like minded posters have clustered and formed bonds created by common interests and in doing so, either by the extent of their bonds with one another, the esorteric nature of their interest, etc., effectivley excluded others, they have formed (unwittingly or not) a clique.

108

[QUOTE=whole bean]
I hate to continue this hijack that I am unfortuinately responsible for – sorry to the OP – but here goes.

First, it’s not a theory. It’s certainly not a theory about you or your on-line friendships. It’s also not a theory regarding the presence of cliques on the SDMB- I am not attempting to explain anyting. I have, I believe, observed cliques here. You might or might not be in one, I don’t know. It’s my impression that others are and that cliques exist here.

Second, nothing I’ve seen suggests that exclusivity, as a group characteristic, has to be arbitrary or intentional for a group to be defined as a clique. To the extent that like minded posters have clustered and formed bonds created by common interests and in doing so, either by the extent of their bonds with one another, the esorteric nature of their interest, etc., effectivley excluded others, they have formed (unwittingly or not) a clique.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, then I have to say, the clique appear to be so rare as not to be a valid complaint by VC03 or anyone else. I have failed to see any obvious signs of what you are describing, while I have seen much of what I thought you were describing. Interests groups I have observed include everything from Fans of a specific show to a specific sport or the large population of Tolkien fans on the board. Other groups would be activities like knitting, reading or cooking. I would love to see one clear example of an actual clique. MMp’ers come the closest, but again, they welcome anyone interested and might be the most effusively friendly group on the dope.

Jim

109

[QUOTE=whole bean]
I don’t know. That’s why I prefaced my comments with “[t]o the extent.” Still, the absence a Giants clique does not mean the absence of cliques. The Dian Fossey line was throwaway, am I really going to have to document one before you’ll accept a cliques existence on the SDMB.
[/QUOTE]

I’m afraid so. Shouldn’t be hard for you to do it, if they’re as common as you claim.

110

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Ok, then I have to say, the clique appear to be so rare as not to be a valid complaint by VC03 or anyone else. I have failed to see any obvious signs of what you are describing, while I have seen much of what I thought you were describing. Interests groups I have observed include everything from Fans of a specific show to a specific sport or the large population of Tolkien fans on the board. Other groups would be activities like knitting, reading or cooking. I would love to see one clear example of an actual clique. MMp’ers come the closest, but again, they welcome anyone interested and might be the most effusively friendly group on the dope.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

I have seen cliques. I’m not going to go around mentioning them. They are not, you know, horribly exclusive. I mean, they do, eventually, let new people in. I don’t find them worth complaining about, but I certainly know they exist.

111

[QUOTE=whole bean]
To the extent that like minded posters have clustered and formed bonds created by common interests and in doing so, either by the extent of their bonds with one another, the esorteric nature of their interest, etc., effectivley excluded others, they have formed (unwittingly or not) a clique.
[/QUOTE]

OK, but so what? As long as people aren’t actively excluding others, they are free to discuss whatever common interests they’d like. There is no board rule that any particular topic must be intellectually accessible or enjoyable to all.

112

[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m afraid so. Shouldn’t be hard for you to do it, if they’re as common as you claim.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t want devote the time and effort to documenting and exposing any SDMB clique (I don’t think it would win any friends amongst the clique members, though I don’t think cliques are necesarily bad), I will concede. Y’all are right. There are no “narrow exclusive groups held together by common interests, views, or purposes” on the dope. I was simply suffering from a paranoid delusion. You’ve talked sense into me.

113

[QUOTE=tdn]
OK, but so what? As long as people aren’t actively excluding others, they are free to discuss whatever common interests they’d like. There is no board rule that any particular topic must be intellectually accessible or enjoyable to all.
[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about a board rule. You seem to think I view cliques as necessarily bad. I don’t. They serve a purpose. Sometimes people want to communicate “exclusivley” (if only for a while) with other of like tastes or interests on a certain topic. You’re right, it’s not against the rules. It’s fine. If it is exclusive, it’s a clique. But like I admitted. They don’t exist here, anywhere, and never have, ever.

114

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
I have seen cliques. I’m not going to go around mentioning them. They are not, you know, horribly exclusive. I mean, they do, eventually, let new people in. I don’t find them worth complaining about, but I certainly know they exist.
[/QUOTE]

Too bad you won’t mention them, as I’m really curious.

But I can think of one: The Weight Loss Club. Those threads really are pretty much exclusively for people intent on taking or keeping off weight. If that doesn’t describe you, then those threads are not for you. But here’s the thing – unless your intent in posting there is to troll, disrupt, or hijack, no one is going to kick you out. You’re just as welcome to post there as anyone else. And if you have something useful to contibute, then we’ll welcome you with open arms.

Cliquish or not?

115

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
I have seen cliques. I’m not going to go around mentioning them. They are not, you know, horribly exclusive. I mean, they do, eventually, let new people in. I don’t find them worth complaining about, but I certainly know they exist.
[/QUOTE]

LIAR!!! Document them now. Name names! Name names! These cliques must be abolished.

116

[QUOTE=tdn]
Too bad you won’t mention them, as I’m really curious.

But I can think of one: The Weight Loss Club. Those threads really are pretty much exclusively for people intent on taking or keeping off weight. If that doesn’t describe you, then those threads are not for you. But here’s the thing – unless your intent in posting there is to troll, disrupt, or hijack, no one is going to kick you out. You’re just as welcome to post there as anyone else. And if you have something useful to contibute, then we’ll welcome you with open arms.

Cliquish or not?
[/QUOTE]

Not. Think more along the lines of certain cultural tastes (particularly esoteric ones) or complete obsessions with works of literature or art, or political philosophies. These kinds of cliques don’t exist here.

117

[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
You sure you’re not an Eagles fan? :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

I missed this…

Pistols at dawn!

/em Goes off looking for a sniper rifle with night scope

118

Clique debate aside, VCO3 is, IMO, not a troll. As far as I can tell, he’s just a club kid who has taken too many drugs and now his brain doesn’t really work right. And I’m pretty sure he frequently posts here in an altered state as well. This, I think, accounts for much of the oddness of his board presence.

And no, this doesn’t excuse his behavior. I’ve taken some shots at him myself. I think posting while drunk/high is, by itself, pretty assholish, and one must still be responsible for one’s posts regardless of what chemical fever produced them. It is, nonetheless, a different order of assholishness to give vent to random musings while hopped up on goofballs, or whatever it is he’s doing, than to produce such blunt-minded observations with clear eyes and brain.

119

[QUOTE=D_Odds]
I missed this…

Pistols at dawn!

[/QUOTE]

As a Cowboy fan I accept and seek Everson Walls’ guidence in the shooting of pistols, especially above Jimmy Hoffa’s resting place. :stuck_out_tongue:

Though I did think about using the Redskins instead of Eagles just to be more un-PC.

120

[QUOTE=whole bean]

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
I have seen cliques. I’m not going to go around mentioning them. They are not, you know, horribly exclusive. I mean, they do, eventually, let new people in. I don’t find them worth complaining about, but I certainly know they exist.
[/QUOTE]

LIAR!!! Document them now. Name names! Name names! These cliques must be abolished.
[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your joke and I seriously doubt anyone wants to seem them abolished.

I wonder, do the 99’ers count as a clique? They are exclusive.

I am sorry if I am becoming annoying about this, but perhaps one of you two could PM me a message on what you feel is a SDMB clique. I just have not seen it.

Jim