slumpystones wrote:
I disagree, as you'd expect. Firstly I object to being called 'you lot' as if I speak for anyone else. I speak purely for myself.
It's an off-hand comment. I don't assume that you're speaking for anyone else, but there's a common tone to the posting style of a few members that merits a reference to those members as a group. I appreciate that it's not an exclusive club or an organised gang, but the share attitude has the effect of encouraging each other in your posting style and behaviour, giving the loose impression of a group.
I don't think there is anything nasty or vitriolic in any of my posts - sarcastic maybe, disagreeable certainly, but that's about all.
I have no interest in taking sides in this. So please trust me when I tell you that to an impartial observer, that's the impression it gives. Mr Carr doesn't exactly come out of this smelling of roses, but it's the regular posters who should be setting a better example and raising the tone a bit.
You have created this 'clique' idea by putting people into imaginary groups, instead of accepting that maybe, just maybe, they actually agree with other. Why is it so impossible to believe that individuals cannot share a belief in something, or indeed a distaste for something else, without being accused of being organised?
Cliques aren't organised. They're ad-hoc. What you've described IS a clique. I'm not suggesting that there's anything sinister or organised about it - I'm suggesting that the agreement, shared interests and defensiveness is entrenching attitudes that will make this forum unwelcoming - especially to dissenting voices. It's only a short while since I was accused of being a troll simply for expressing a different opinion in what I genuinely felt was a polite and friendly fashion. If a poster can be excluded and alienated for such behaviour, then I don't think "clique" is an inappropriate term to apply. And really... I say this with the best of intentions. I don't think anyone here is deliberately behaving in that fashion, but these situations arise spontaneously and require people to take a step back and observe how their posting style appears to an outsider. All I'm suggesting is that people rise above the name-calling - is that too much to ask?
"English Heritage's handling of the whole Silbury issue from day one has been nothing more than shoddy" is the main complaint by many - is that so impossible to understand?
Not at all. I entirely agree with you. It's not the substance of your argument that I'm taking issue with.
The question you should be asking is why someone who is educated, erudite and intelligent, should seek to subvert discussions about English Heritage and Silbury, not once actually contributing anything, rather attacking the methods used by others, making fun of their attempts to change the way things are done and generally subverting the thread?
But I honestly couldn't care. If you think he's a troll, either ignore him or engage politely with him. You have the facts on your side with which to back up your case, so if he becomes rude, you'll only make your case more convincing by rising above it.
Why should he bother? He has indicated no real interest in the actual subject of this forum, let alone this thread, and has chosen to harrass those who have legitimate concerns, with good reason, for a fragile and threatened ancient monument.
Look, I really don't care. You can't prove whether he's a troll or not. You may have reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that's not the issue. The issue is how you respond to the guy. Abusing someone on a public forum undermines the legitimacy of your position and discourages other people from posting. He can be the biggest troll in under the bridge, but your case is still not served by being rude to him. Keep it polite, keep it civilised, rise above any abuse, and you've got a no-lose situation. I don't see the problem.
