On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:11pm wrote:
That the ugly, vitriolic thread outing Southover Queen has been removed. Apart from the posts submitted by her (rather many) staunch supporters--it was painful and maddening to read. We of wider reference shall miss you, SQ.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:15pm gone and already forgot wrote:
maybe a new queen will come to light
On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:45pm Bruciare il Papa wrote:
Sad that someone feels they have to leave the forum, but there are loads of trolls out there (who on Earth gave stupid people the right to access PC's?)
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:15pm Blip wrote:
SQ: your contributions to this forum were well-informed, articulate, helpful and often kind and thoughtful. You will be missed - if you really intend to disappear, but I hope you won't.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:25pm sceptic wrote:
Dont let the minority get you down. We miss you and will support you. If you decide to completely leave the forum then thankyou for your past contributions.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:36pm Nevillman wrote:
Agreed with the above. The trolling and personal attacks are pathetic and I am convinced the work of 14 year olds. They should be ignored but it is not easy
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:37pm wrote:
Well put, Blip and sceptic. They are indeed a minority. Perhaps even one or two hate-filled pillocks, as postulated by BrixtonBelle in another scary post. Ignorance is terrifying when it's so unremitting in its wilfulness. I do hope she returns--even in another incarnation--though we shall know it's her by her indefatigable style and wit...
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:37pm wrote:
Well put, Blip and sceptic. They are indeed a minority. Perhaps even one or two hate-filled pillocks, as postulated by BrixtonBelle in another scary post. Ignorance is terrifying when it's so unremitting in its wilfulness. I do hope she returns--even in another incarnation--though we shall know it's her by her indefatigable style and wit...
On 21 Feb 2013 at 10:55pm Southover Queen wrote:
Thanks folks. The problem for me is that the open hostility which seems to dog my every post is really inhibiting. In the end being told that you're arrogant/patronising/biased/ill-informed does get you down. Nastiest of all, funnily enough, was the person who followed me round and picked apart anything I said in tones of corrosive disdain. I am also quite shocked that in this day and age, people are prepared to be so openly misogynistic, anti-gay, xenophobic and frankly racist. Lewes is a town with a proud tradition of free speech and standing up for the common man: it's a tradition which is sadly absent here from many posters.
I quite like Southover Queen. She's a feisty character who doesn't suffer fools gladly, but I think she's probably run out of road.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 11:04pm Deelite wrote:
Short memories. This is not the first time this has happened.The small minded stupids have driven of a number of people in the last couple of years. Spinster of the Parish, Lopster, MC, Paul Newman (Newmania), Southover Queen, to name only the ones I can recall (and my memory is crap).
Unfortunately anonimity enables the cowardly spitefull to exercise their natures all too freely.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 11:04pm Mrs Twine wrote:
I feel the same, dear. No-one buys my yogurt macrame creations now, not even Clifford. I am thinking of taking up a life of adventure with Ben Fogle.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 11:08pm Zebedee wrote:
I was going to say be careful of the acid, but it's probably a bit late.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 1:02am Cllr Donna Edmunds wrote:
The answer might simply be to disallow pseudonyms....
On 22 Feb 2013 at 1:21am 456 wrote:
Can't do that Donna, plenty of Councillors use them to avoid being accountable. Some even become Mayor.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 1:50am Expat Two wrote:
Disallow?
Do you mean 'ban'?
Deelite, mourning the loss of Paul Newman due to small minded stupids a somewhat ironic. His hate filled posts were the most corrosively spiteful and peurile the forum has ever witnessed! Its like saying small minded stupid allies drove the Nazis from expressing their opinions about the Jews. The forum is a much better place without him stinking the place up. Lopster & MC were polite enough though, and I do miss them.
'Disallow.'
Lol.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:24am Deelite wrote:
I did have reservations about including Paul, but did so as I could not remember the names of others who'd been hounded off.
Donna means "Registration", something I'm uncertain about but to my mind is almost inevitable if the forum is not to be closed down by the lawyers of those who feel themselves slandered here.
Registration would put an end to whistle-blowing by members of LDC, the police, the parking attendants and the school parents. This would be a real shame, especially where LDC are concerned (note the completely unfounded gossip concerning James Page and Jenny Rowlands posted in the thread below by what are almost certainly disgruntled LDC employees). It has not gone unnoticed that the Sussex Express scour this forum to source their 'news' (amusingly a week or two ago I picked up a copy to find three articles on the home page, including the lead one, were based on threads in this forum). The forum would be much less interesting if registration was required, but it would also be much more pleasant.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 7:18am Kettle wrote:
Hope you don't give up sq. will miss your posts.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 8:37am tourette wrote:
Ideally nobody should post ad hominem attacks but lets face it ,most people fall into this from time to time. Some of the greatest debaters around use this strategy. Some people have very thin skins and burst into tears when someone else doesn't show respect for their position. It is worth noting that views that are considered "vile,hateful,repellent,ignorant,pre-historic,racist,misogynist etc are completely mainstream in society outside the bubble of the media,academy,public sector establishment.
I know it is very frustrating for the refined to have discourse with the lower orders but that is what democracy is all about. It is so easy to think well of yourself for your opinions isn't it?
On 22 Feb 2013 at 9:14am Kettle wrote:
There's a difference between attacking someone's posts and the kind of foul personal abuse sq has had to put up with. Starting a thread about someone is out of order. I think anyone would be upset, but especially if it leads to revealing who the person is in real life. That sq has been the target of vandals is especially horrifying if it has anything to do with the forum.
I agree that there a great deal of misogyny in a lot of the posts of this forum, and reminding yourself that there are a lot of inadequate little men around doesn't always help. In fact it is very depressing.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 10:21am Southover Queen wrote:
Tourette wrote: "Some people have very thin skins and burst into tears when someone else doesn't show respect for their position." If by "some people" you mean me you need to rethink that statement. I merely hope for the same degree of "respect" accorded to others here - something which it's quite clear does not happen. Thin skin? Burst into tears? I don't think so.
"I know it is very frustrating for the refined to have discourse with the lower orders but that is what democracy is all about. It is so easy to think well of yourself for your opinions isn't it?"
Are you saying that "vile, hateful, repellent, ignorant, pre-historic, racist, misogynist" views are the sole province of "the lower orders"? And by contrast that compassion and rational argument are the sole province of the "media, academy, public sector establishment"? Good grief. Yes, I'd think well of anyone with the guts to challenge that kind of snobbish, class-ridden, ante-diluvian nonsense. There are several people who do that here; I'm the only one subject to the "unfortunate" ad hominem attacks.
Kettle: yes, I'm pretty certain that the doorbell ringing was related to a previous outing on this forum since it happened the following morning. It was a deliberate attempt to disrupt my livelihood, I believe. Who knows about the wing mirror? I was the only one in the street who suffered, but perhaps it really was just a coincidence. I bring this up because it's important that people using the forum realise that there are real-life consequences to actions here.
Registration would help, and wouldn't actually mean that only real names could be used - I run another very busy forum which relies on anonymity. However it does make it more difficult for people to post under multiple forum identities, and that in turn would restrict the activities of the sock-puppet trolls. It also makes it easier to ban people who constantly disrupt the forum. However this is Webbo's space and it's got to be up to him.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 11:18am someone else wrote:
The online identity thing is difficult. In principle, I'm happy to be publicly identified with any statement I might make, but the problem is that the world is too 'connected' and I would not want business clients, for example, to be able to search every opinion I might have via Google - hence my using an assumed online name. Anytime my company considers employing someone we usually carry out a quick search, and it's quite staggering how much information is available and how willing people are to disclose pictures of themselves drunk etc - particularly so with the young.
But I do think that registration is an absolute necessity.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 11:22am Clifford wrote:
There are a few people whose posts i always went to because i knew they'd be saying something worth reading, whether I agreed or not. Southover Queen was one, jrsussex was another. Sad day.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 11:27am tourette wrote:
I am sorry if someone did target you. I can't understand why they would do that. I think you misunderstood my post though. Very often anyone who responds to the pc norm is labelled as ignorant. This is an attempt to shame someone for their views. It is impossible for some people to imagine that you can reject multiculturalism without being a Nazi or oppose gay marriage without being ignorant and bigoted.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 11:37am jrsussex wrote:
I've been in out of town for a couple of days and have clearly missed something. It will be a sad loss to the forum that we no longer have Southover Queen's contribution to the many debates etc we have on here. Clifford's post is spot-on with regard posts worth reading and certainly SQ is a major contributor. If no one was prepared to offer a different aspect on a particular matter and be prepared to dispute various points the forum would be uninteresting and die within a few weeks. It is the SQ's that make it what it is.
You come across SQ as pretty tough, stick with it.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 12:40pm SC wrote:
I've always found SQ's comments have eloquently stated what I have been thinking, and haven't needed to post my thoughts as a result - perhaps in future, if you do keep posting SQ, I will be more vocal!
Thanks for your contributions SQ. I feel they are well argued and very helpful!
On 22 Feb 2013 at 2:05pm Southover Queen wrote:
I wrote a longish response which has been swallowed up by the ether. Essentially, JR: yes, I'm pretty tough but unfortunately I'm also running a business in this town and I cannot afford for it to be disrupted. I've now been outed twice, and the first time that resulted in actual harm. I simply can't risk that happening again.
SQ has become a real target and that's inhibiting however much you try to avoid letting it be so. I note the absence of posters such as Boris and others in this thread; it would be nice to think that they were reviewing their behaviour and deciding to engage in reasoned debate instead of childish bullying, but I doubt it.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 3:10pm JoeLewes wrote:
My name is Joe and I live in Lewes so I am not hiding (much). Lets get this in perspective. I have disagreed with SQâ??s comments before â?? I think in a reasoned way. I am not right wing but then neither am I left wing (and I am certainly not one of Normsâ?? lot). I accept wholeheartedly multiculturalism and all the other isms if you like. What I have taken issue with in the past is that many well known â??threadersâ? (SQ is not alone) take any viewpoint which is contrary to theirs as though they are the views of an ingrate and the abuse flows freely. Come on, think about it and admit it, it does happen. And a lot of people have been hounded off this forum by this sort of thing â?? just for holding mildly contrary views.
I donâ??t know any of the forum users (or I don't think I do!). As for SQ being â??outedâ?, I disagree â?? I still havenâ??t a clue who she is. If she is a drinker, I may even be sitting next to her in a pub tonight. She will be a thoroughly normal person â?? who may just happen to differ politically with me. Most of my friends (good friends) have a different world view to me. But what we donâ??t do is slag each other off vehemently when we do differ.
But itâ??s a different matter with anonymity. On the Forum, you can be as malicious as you want (if Webbo lets you) and you can hide behind your pseudonym. As long as you can do this, it wonâ??t change. I fully agree that there are some quite disgusting viewpoints on here -or are they just someone holding up the proverbial red flag?
If SQ wants to leave then it up to her. She wonâ??t be the last and she certainly wasnâ??t the first. If she stays then it will add to the discussion pool. All I would say is that she and others may just want to think about how they reply and react to any thread(er) that they do not agree with. After all, what would the world be like if everyone agreed with each other?
Cue abuse from people who disagree with my points.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 3:33pm Southover Queen wrote:
Joe, if the cap fitted I'd happily wear it. However it just doesn't. I really don't think I'm malicious, although I certainly do get cross when people misrepresent my views.
Sometimes people express themselves imperfectly - on both sides. It's very easy to do on a message board, so I'm sure I have sometimes got the wrong end of the stick. I'm sure people have misinterpreted my meanings quite innocently in the past. However there's a difference between the ebb and flow of normal discussion and what's been aimed at me recently.
Secondly, I'm glad you have no idea idea who I am. Nevertheless there are some who do and I don't trust them not to use that information against me. Webbo takes a very dim view of people being outed, so those threads don't remain for long, but the effects are cumulative.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 3:40pm Trevor wrote:
Oh crikey. I've been tossing up whether you write anything in response to this debacle or not.
I didn't see any of the thread that's been removed, but can imagine what it contained, and I don't condone it at all.
It's difficult for me to get this next point across without it seeming like a personal attack, so I'll try to keep it general if I can.
My issue is that there are a number of posters, of which I'm afraid SQ is the most notable example, who come across in their posts as extraordinarily self-righteous. Now I know I'll get responses saying "Well I'm not" or "You're obviously misinterpreting my posts", but the fact remains that I'm obviously not the only one that thinks this.
Now, it's not necessarily a case of what the view actually is, whether it be left-wing, right-wing, or whatever, but it's the way that the view is EXPRESSED that's the problem.
We all know SQ is eloquent and can string sentences together, but my issue remains the TONE of the posts. It always comes across as "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you had the benefit of my vast knowledge you would understand". That's not how to behave. You can disagree with people without belittling them.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that if EVERYONE could learn to express themselves better, and less "this is fact and you are wrong", then perhaps there'd be less abuse.
I can already guess what the responses to this post will be, and that's part of the problem too. If people can't see in themselves the need to adjust their behaviour then of course other people will get riled, and those people may resort to underhand tactics to try to hound people off the site.
Just be a bit less 'moral high ground' and a bit more 'level playing field' (if that's not mixing metaphors a bit too much!)
I really don't want to cause anyone upset, but I also think it's important not to just sit back and watch people fawning over each other unnecessarily.
I'd be happy for SQ to keep posting, as long as she, along with everyone else, could learn to stay the right side of sanctimonious.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 3:56pm Trevor wrote:
By the way, none of the above refers to anything any of the nasty, evil little trolls might have said.
Like I say, I don't know what was written on the other thread, although I'm sure most of it was just pointless, spiteful, twisted stuff. There's no defending that and I wouldn't want to.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:20pm tourette wrote:
I think Trevor has some good points here. Like him I didn't see the deleted thread but I have to agree that SQ often speaks as if she has enlightenment and those who differ are in theological error. This may be unintentional but nevertheless it's been detectable in several threads I have observed. As an ex liberal I am very familiar with the tactic.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:35pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
SQ, I'm really sorry that you are suffering this kind of abuse and that it's rolling over into real life as well. I hope you keep on posting - I've always found your posts lucid, clear and informative and easy to understand. Some people may choose to see your analytical and verbal ability as a threat to them and condone it as supercilious and belittling, but that is their problem not yours. It's irrelevant to me what part of the political spectrum your views fall on, it's that they are intelligently and cogently put, and are often hard to argue against.
Please stay strong and continue to contribute. I've had my share of nasty comments too and one of the bonuses of this forum is the anonymity, but there have been times I've posted under other pseudonyms to prevent my identity from being clear - this is such a small town and it's easy for people to take offence and I don;t want that to have any kick back on me or my children. I've also posted under my own name as well. Quite often now I just keep out of debates on here because of the amount of flack it can generate.
Good Luck in your endeavours if you decide not to post again.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:41pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Mrs Twine - I feel the urge for some macrame yoghurt - have you any in stock ?
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:53pm Taff wrote:
Surely the emotion one reads into a post can only be applied by the reader. The composer may well have been feeling completely different when they wrote it. And some items I have seen on here become pi**ing contests rather than debate.
TFIF
On 22 Feb 2013 at 5:42pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Exactly the point I was about to make Taff.
I can't believe that some people are mean enough to carry a forum disagreement over into the real world. Just pathetic.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 6:12pm Southover Queen wrote:
Thanks BB.
You see, this is the problem: I missed "sanctimonious" off the list of my faults. It's very hard to know how a third party reads what I post, but I am honestly not attempting to be any of those things. If I have a differing opinion or an opposing argument, I'll try to explain why I believe those things and why I disagree with whatever has been said before. If someone claims, for example, that 90% of men phoning into a 5Live programme believe that gay marriage is an outrage, then I might reference an independent poll which shows that there is no such majority. That's not being dismissive of someone else, that is respecting their intelligence enough to offer a counter-argument. I'm not saying that I'm right either, or know better or indeed think the other person is an idiot (or not generally anyway). I enjoy debate and I'm a member of several online communities: I have never been accused of anything similar elsewhere. So maybe Taff has a point - the tone of my posts is at least as much down to who is reading them as it is to what I intend when I write them.
If someone asks an opinion about local suppliers or tradesmen and I have recent experience which is relevant I'll offer it - isn't that the core function of a local forum? I'll say what they did and why I was happy with it, otherwise what's the point? I've enjoyed a meal in a local pub - what on earth is wrong with saying so? On the now deleted thread it's clear that for some reason this is being interpreted as my being a know-all.
I'm very sorry to say that I detect more than a touch of misogyny in much of the flak directed at me. The now-deleted thread speculated as to my gender, and made several pretty disgusting sexual innuendoes. No-one was prepared to explain why my sex is of any possible relevance. There are plenty of other regular posters who are at least as forthright in their opinions, yet their male personae escape unscathed.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 6:24pm weary again wrote:
The Hilary Mantell thread reveals all you need to know about the rampant and vile misogyny that so often prevails on this forum....