Bellsisabelle

Forgot to add the to show that previous post was a joke.

That is all it takes, Jane to be accused of being a cligue! Just have to post a similar reaction to a conspiracy theory.

We'd better watch out when we post about meeting Anya during the Fringe - obviously we will use the occasion to plot our next nefarious conspiracy against an innocent victim.

Not a clique Jane10 "sharing an opinion on one issue (or even two) does not a clique make. "
I respect Elegran and her carefully considered views (and have had occasion to fall foul of them) and it troubles me to see mud being slung with no regard for the named people's feelings.
It is too easy to accuse people of being in a gang or a clique just because they do not necessarily share one's views.

Erm this reaction is beginning to look like a clique!

What inside information do you have on this mythical clique, ankers that no-one else seems to have? Not even those who are supposed to belong to it?

Galen part of a clique??????

The clique has been going on for years
Evidence?? You have only been a member (under this name) for a short time.

I dont do any of the things listed in the post
Really? Not even the "meanness to a lot (any) people"
Don't false unfounded accusations count?.

So the come-back is "halo." A useful catch-all phrase so no needs to bother oneself with truths.
You don't seem to be bothering with truths, just conjecture which is unfounded (see above)

Or "holier than thou"
Now that does, as Theresa May would say
"Remind me of someone".

'The clique has been going on for years'. What makes you say that Ankers? I thought you were a new member.

I agree with what Ankers said in this case. I don't think thatbags is mean though. Its just that others have different points of view which are at least as valid as her own one of people taking offence when she thinks they shouldn't. Not everyone saw that posting as a 'joke'. Not everyone knew the context. Not everyone sees themselves as 'victims' or 'stuffed shirts'. We are all human and open to a wide range of emotions. We can easily be upset on another's behalf. Check out mirror neurone theory if time permits.

That is on a parallel with your accusations that named posters formed a clique to object to a rather summary banning, when what they were doing (separately and without plotting!) was stating a principle.

The clique has been going on for years.

I dont do any of the things listed in the post.

So the come-back is "halo." A useful catch-all phrase so no needs to bother oneself with truths.
Or "holier than thou".

ankers So you think that thatbags is mean because she doesn't hold with exaggerated displays of hurt feelings (for other people, at that, over an obvious little joke about GJ taking in washing when she is one of the least likely to be reduced to that)?

That is on a parallel with your accusations that named posters formed a clique to object to a rather summary banning, when what they were doing (separately and without plotting!) was stating a principle.

thatbags acts as she speaks. There have been times on GN when things have been said about her that were meant to cut deep. Did she throw a tantrum about them and flounce off? No she did not.

Stop pretending to be so virtuous that YOU would never do any of the things you listed in your post. Anyone who has a halo that big would never get their head through the door.

Blimey Ankers!!
BTW have you apologised to Elegran for calling her the leader of this non-existent clique yet?
You can choose any of the "reasons" in your post as appropriate.
Otherwise I would respectfully suggest you think twice about this "holier than thou" attitude.

I mean tolerate that they can be said. Argue with them by all means.

I don't think a single joke can be called bullying, even if it 'goes wrong' and is taken badly. Bullying would be where the 'joker' then carried on making such jokes against an individual.

I think petra's remark has been blown out of proportion.

I used the word 'flounced' as it's the usual term for leaving a forum in a huff and accouncing the intention beforehand. It's not as though granjura simply disappeared.

thatbags.
To try and get out of comments you have made, or to defend comments that someone else has made, you often use the following reasons

freedom of speech

the person was only using a quip

the person was making a joke

it was banter

the person should learn to not take offence so easily

they should not be so easily offended

they should not try and blame others for their sensitivity

wallowing in victimhood[new one on me]

and more excuses/reasons besides.

But none of this hides the meanness to a lot of people.

I presume now you find some sort of other loophole in what I say, but the meanness will not remain hidden.

I never said it's an expectation to go through life without having feelings hurt, did I?

However it was clear that petra was genuinely joking IMO because as roses says it was extremely unlikely.

Although, since this thread is not about gg am not sure why we are discussing it anyway.

I thought on Gransnet that flouncing ( leaving,by announcing you are leaving in an aggrieved way) was the usual wording. Otherwise, somebody who just leaves quietly does that.... just leaves.
The little joke by Petra made me smile because of the unlikelyhood of gg having to do anything remotely humble jobwise.
I expect that gg is still reading all the posts, either in her home in Switzerland or in England.

thatbags I can understand why you are taking this "what are you whining about?" (note the word whining) stance. It is your style also to make provocative comments and then come over all surprised and superior because some people find them unpleasant.

To talk about someone as "flouncing" and referring to her in such a sarcastic way was obviously not affectionate teasing but just having a dig. And, in a sense, it was behind granjura's back because she is not on this thread.

I think it's unreasonable to expect to go through life never having hurt feelings.

I don't think I find it any easier than most people to deal with hurt feelings, anya, but I am conscious of deliberately trying as much as possible not to blame others for my feelings. Sorry if that sounds smug. It bloody isn't. It's very hard to do, but worth it, I have found.

Oh, and in my defence about the stuffed shirts comment, I did not call anyone a stuffed shirt; I indicated that some comments and an apparent lack of sense of humour reminded me of the expression stuffed shirts.

Or has been through.

I suppose it depends on what 'hurt feelings' trigger in different people. Some will find it easy to brush off, as perhaps you do bags while with others it may go much deeper.

People cannot always control their emotions even if they try. Some days are easier then others, but if a chance remark gets to you on a day that you are feeling fragile then it can be quite upsetting. Who knows what another person is going through?

You have not offended me, jane10. You have made comments that I have, initially, taken offence at. The two things are quite different, which is why I haven't complained. As a good writer, I'm sure you can see the difference. I have no wish to complain, just to point out how easy it is to take on an offended air and how one should resist the urge over minor things.

I think what has been happening on this thread is that people are choosing to do what I've heard called "wallowing in victimhood" and not even their own victimhood at that. It is being assumed that gj will take offence. We could at least wait until we know one way or the other whether her feelings need to be defended or whether she is, as I suspect, since I respect her powerful personality even though we've often disagreed and annoyed each other, able to accommodate a wee harmless joke.

Someone will argue its harmfulness. I'd like to know exactly who it has harmed and how.

That's a challenge. Not to people to go on whining about hurt feelings, but to say clearly what harm has been done by the remark in question.

ankers, I think even deliberate offence-giving is sometimes justified. If, for example, someone has been sarcastic or mean towards one, an offensive put-down is quite in order in my view. Other people would just call the offensive put-down an appropriate retort.

Others may call it
tit for tat
two wrongs dont make a right
ill-mannered
etc

If I have given offence thatbags then I'm sorry but I don't suppose that'll count with you what with me being a 'stuffed shirt' and all.
I only entered this discussion to try to find Gj. Fortunately I have been helped to do so by others who had picked up on my concern rather than interest in sustaining a war of words.