Bellsisabelle

Now no-one need feel that they don't know what is going on - which is a big part of that feeling that cliques are talking secretly about things and excluding others.

Maybe we can now let go of this thread and get on with life?

On this thread, yes, but she's posted on other threads today.

Well summed up, Elegran.

OK, let's stop being coy and cryptic and spell out neutrally some things that have been referred to.

To recap this thread - Ankers shifted the thread onto cliques and listed several names she thought were a clique, presumably the one to re-instate Jings, as that was the trigger for this thread. The only connection between the names was that all of them posted on a previous thread that they thought Jings was guilty of some unwise comments from time to time but should not have been banned for reacting to the abuse she got for her horrified post about the Aleppo bombing. There may have been more behind the ban than that, of course

She mentioned me as leader of the mythical "clique" and said another poster had said that I led a clique. That can only be because of a thread a little while ago by someone who was aggrieved at the comments about the blog she mistakenly posted uninvited on a topic reserved for invited bloggers. I think she labelled me the leading, most prolific and vitriolic poster on the forum, or some such thing.

One of Ankers' later comments on here implied that she didn't quite understand the meaning of "clique" and had not meant it to be derogatory. Ankers has shown in the short time she has been on Gransnet that she sometimes doesn't understand a post and asks for it to made clearer.

A parallel could be drawn (and it has been drawn, obliquely and directly) with the posters soontobe and obieone who often asked for an explanation of an unfamiliar word or a complicated post, and with other characteristics of the posts of those two users.

Ankers seems to have stopped posting now.

Check out who accuses elegran of being clique-fuhrer (strange hybrid term) and you'll find the root of much of this nonsense. Bear in mind that direct personal 'attacks' are banworthy offences!

All right who is the poster with the second third and fourth names and what were they? I've been very kindly pm 'd to put me out of my misery for the early mystery re bellies abelle. My proper name is not ,I repeat not Alan Turing and cryptic crosswords send me to sleep

BlueBell, I have no idea either. I post when I feel like it. When I do 't like the thread I ignore it and when I don't like what a poster has to say I usually mutter 'silly old twit' to myself. Occasionally I might be a little more strong in my opinions .but as someone else said GN is. I normally miss any intrigue that may or may not be going on.

Would it be too much to (respectfully) suggest that an apology to the falsely maligned "clique" might be in order?
As in "Sorry, I got that wrong "

The thought of Elegran being in a clique, or indeed being a clique fuhrer, really made me laugh. And Galen is hardly ever around to be in one. Ankers, you are so funny.

morethan2 Even as an army wife I avoided the wives club like the plague.
The other RN wives thought I was odd because I went out to work and didn't join in the endless coffee mornings.
Accusations of 'cliques' and certainly this:
Elegran, I am not the first poster to post you are head of a clique.
is just really weird; sorry Ankers but imo Elegran is one of the most unbiased, sensible and reasonable posters on here (and I am not in any clique - even if any exist).

People do pm one another - for all kinds of diverse reasons and it doesn't mean they are being cliquey, it could mean that they want to say something they may not want to post on a thread. If people chat on a non-contentious thread amicably they may get to 'know' one another; it doesn't mean they are in a 'clique'. Setting oneself against everyone on a thread (I don't mean arguing about politics here) does leave everyone looking askance.

Re jings - I am sorry she went, didn't catch her reappearance (must be slow on the uptake) and sorry she has gone again because she may have said a few things that could be construed as 'spiky' but equally she could be very kind - and compassionate - and funny.

It takes all sorts to make a world and it takes all sorts to make GN interesting - especially when posters don't agree with each other on threads! Equally, if you disagree with someone on one issue it doesn't mean you don't agree with them regarding something else.

We are quick enough to report spam. Isn't that also grassing up
not sure Nelliemoser, some 'spam' can just make us [sigh], other spam or even OPs may not be as innocent as it may appear.
We don't know why jings was banned and we do not know that anyone at all 'grassed her up', it may just be GN has a system set up or someone at GNHQ noticed.
A lifetime ban seems harsh when other people are allowed back to cause havoc.

The question was, did GNHQ spot her or was she grassed up? Well its not easy to spot any previously banned poster who arrives under another name.
You might think we we can recognise a style of posting but you can never be sure who it is.

I suspect that only GNHQ can find out the ?IP address of whoever has made a particular post which is the only determiner of who it is posting.
GNHQ have blocked a number of quite nasty posters over the time so they might be on the lookout for particular IP addresses.

We are quick enough to report spam. Isn't that also grassing up?

As for the issue of whether or not we should be told about why someone has been banned. I feel that would be totally wrong. That should just be between GN and the "alleged perpetrator". Potential "gossip" about someones misdemeanours does no one any credit. We should all be entitled to some privacy.

Am I the only regular poster who hasn't got a clue what's going on here ? I m on the outside looking in haha .....carry on , its like a pantomime in another language She's online, oh no she isn't, oh yes she is, she has another name, oops there she is -gone, but there's others masquerading as others who might be others, wow there's a whole group of others now it's getting bigger and now it's French ...is it a bird, is it a bee, no it's a clique

Just because a number of people hold the same views - and express them on GN - does not make them a clique. There are some people whose views I agree with but if I post agreeing with their comments it does not mean we have formed a clique. I like to read the views from all sides - even those I disagree with! I find GN members are on the whole a friendly, helpful bunch, always willing to offer support and advice.

Anya, Hope you don't mean me.? I AM normally just a lurker, but am genuinely surprised by the determined stance G nH q have taken. I never pm anyone except in response to a nice message.

What clique? I post on Gransnet when I have something I wish to say, why does it bother people, really could not care less. Posters on here do not affect my life, It is something I do in my spare time. If this mythical clique disagree with me fine, I have moved on.

Curious about whether I might be regarded as a member of a clique, I have looked at my Inbox to see who I have PMed.

I can only say that a more wide-ranging bunch, from every point of view, it would be hard
to find, and I hereby declare myself clique-free.

I think Anya's post at 9.17 today says it all.

Then there is the odd poster who just suddenly materialises but only in times of 'need' a bit like a guardian angel

I'm getting too cryptic, a sign I need to

Not sure which perceived clique took which corner but I belong to neither 'side' and remain neutral on jinglgate.
I feel free to agree that unexplained bans, 'grassing' and high-handed deletions by GNHQ are all equally unacceptable.

There's no doubt some people were happy when she was banned.

The difference about how this thread has developed (not started) as against the previous one I can remember is that the clique referred to here is for jing , the previous one was accused of plotting to keep her away.even being responsible for her banning in the first place.

Morethan the irony is that these gangs/cliques exist only in the mind of the poster in question and I agree with you re membership of any such secretive group.
I agree too that the thread started off in one way but don't think its diversion has caused any harm or hurt - unlike some.

Yes, the thread lets GNHQ know that we are aware of what's gone on and some of us are not happy about it.

If they'd deleted it, it would just have exacerbated the feelings of injustice.

But this thread was about the possible return of jingl under the name of bellsisabelle and her subsequent disappearance again.

The question was, did GNHQ spot her or was she grassed up?

HQ is always saying they don't have time to read all the threads and rely on posters to alert them to infringements of the rules (spies in the camp) but on the other hand it has been suggested that through something technical (time portals to other universes or something) they might have spotted her signing in.

Luckily no one at HQ has been crass enough to suggest subduing us oldies with the offer of cakes (yet) which suggests they either haven't noticed this thread or they have decided (wisely) just to let us get on with it - discussion being pointless as we are effectively powerless.

I don't either morethan but I was mentioned and totally innocent of any membership apart from GN

I don't want to be in any gang or clique. I avoid them at all costs. Even as an army wife I avoided the wives club like the plague. I can remember making friends with a group of young women and that they complained bitterly when I went to to town on my own. They became just nodding acquaintances very quickly. Perhaps there's somthing wrong with me.