c4countdown

Jon Corby wrote:I think you're joking, but it is actually quite hurtful to see that written down from somebody that you love and respect. But do you know what hurts the most?

Being anally raped by David O'Donnell in the gents toilets of Unit One.

.... and the rest of us in the green room thought you two kept nipping off to the gents together because you were nervous before your games!

Jon Corby wrote:I think you're joking, but it is actually quite hurtful to see that written down from somebody that you love and respect. But do you know what hurts the most?

Being anally raped by David O'Donnell in the gents toilets of Unit One.

I know the feeling.

I couldn't see anything beyond my PENISES in round 9.

Vikash Shah wrote:I couldn't see anything beyond my PENISES in round 9.

You should have some of them amputated, it will make the remaining ones look bigger.

Charlie Reams wrote:I wouldn't want people to think I would actually say something that moronic (to Phil or anyone else) with a straight face.

I actually rather hope that you will continue to keep a straight face. One of the joys of good intellects is the quality of invective and insult. Anything other than a straight face spoils the fun. But two or more straight faces raises the risks.

I guess that my default mode is humour (attempted) - which might not be surprising given that I make a living blowing raspberries into a lump of metal.

I see no harm in Katherine's game summaries. Personally I only post a beater if its something impressive/obscure/dirty/puerile/darrenic but if it helps her confidence why shouldn't she do it? If you don't like them its not too hard to skim over them.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I see no harm in Katherine's game summaries. Personally I only post a beater if its something impressive/obscure/dirty/puerile/darrenic but if it helps her confidence why shouldn't she do it? If you don't like them its not too hard to skim over them.

Yeah, don't be so sensitive Katherine. If I'm honest I don't pay much attention to your round-by-round posts, but that's because I'm too busy to do more than just skim through the threads briefly. But if it helps your confidence then do it. Without having met you, I certainly don't regard you as "stupid, worthless and thick". The forum is about people with a common interest all getting together and exchanging ideas and opinions - we all come from different backgrounds and have varying levels of ability at the game. The fact that you've found the confidence within yourself to join and make regular posts is an achievement in itself for someone with low self-confidence and you should be proud of yourself for that.

There is no reason why you should not be able to find a supportive network of friends on here. Now you've highlighted this need to us I think you will find people all the more supportive - remember we didn't really know much about you before. You mention cliques - I think they exist to an extent wherever you go in life, and in a way it's inevitable because some people have been around longer than others and have had more time to get to know each other. But 12 months ago I was a complete unknown on here, not having appeared on the show, at Co- events or been on the forum, and I've generally found people very welcoming and encouraging.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Phil, I should totally employ you as my full-time apologist.

What's the pay like?

A Mars bar.

I love when the humour from another thread crops up elsewhere.

Jon Corby wrote:you can foe her which means you won't see her posts at all.

Ah, is that what that does?! I wondered about that. Seems weird to me to ever cast someone off, as I'm sure we've all had people in life that we get off on the wrong foot with then get on well years later. We'd never had reached there if we'd cut them off.

It never occured to me that we could all be on someone's 'foe' list and not know it... Thank goodness I've had replies to some of my posts then! Some of you are reading them! *mops brow*

Off topic, but what happens then when you 'friend' someone, as surely that makes no difference to the posts you see - you'd see them all, except your foes? *confused*

Mike Spellar wrote:
Not all are tarred with the same brush though, some people on here are very pleasant and welcoming, Junaid, (who actually beat Charlie in the final of series 59), is a very pleasant guy, Jon Corby, Jason Larsen, Dinos Sfyris and RP.

Yeah, I did laugh when I saw Corby's name mentioned! Also, do you imply these are the only nice people on the forum?

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Off topic, but what happens then when you 'friend' someone, as surely that makes no difference to the posts you see - you'd see them all, except your foes? *confused*

This.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I couldn't see anything beyond my PENISES in round 9.

You should have some of them amputated, it will make the remaining ones look bigger.

Genuine LOL.

Fwiw I spend a frustrating amount of time on here getting seriously pissed off at the point-scoring, put-downs and general unfriendliness - particularly towards people who are new or clearly unconfident. From the responses when people are accused of such behaviour, most people here clearly don't agree with me about this. They think they're just having a laugh, they think they're mostly friendly, they think that occasionally people deserve to be put in their place, that it will be somehow character-building and get them used to the culture round these parts.

I've mostly given up trying to complain about the things which annoy me - it only pisses people off and creates more aggro, which I'm keen to avoid - and there's the rub. I think it's largely a culture thing. Some people are more sensitive than others, some people prefer a jokey-insult culture where everyone constantly insults one another and it's just part of the craic. Personally I love swapping insults with my friends, when I can see their faces and know they mean it affectionately, but on the internet, with people I don't know (and so am not used to their habits, don't know how serious they're being) and whose body language I can't read, I tend to stay clear. Because I don't much enjoy conflict. So to be honest, if it weren't for the shared interest and my need to express my current CD obsession somewhere, I'd just accept that I don't fit in with the culture here, and bugger off elsewhere instead.

I do wonder whether there's a bit of a gender divide, what with the frequent posters here being mostly male, and (supposedly) men being more aggressive than women. Certainly the insults thrown around here are done so almost exclusively by men. Other forums I spend time on are female-dominated and much fluffier and friendlier.

Rich Priest wrote:You mention cliques - I think they exist to an extent wherever you go in life, and in a way it's inevitable because some people have been around longer than others and have had more time to get to know each other.

Yup. Of course there's a clique here, and it'd be silly to suggest otherwise. But that's pretty much inevitable, and if you don't like the word clique you could say the following instead: There is a subset of the membership who spend more time on here than others, thereore know each other better than anyone else and have running jokes. They are also more likely to talk to each other and respond well to each other than to newbies or less frequent posters, simply because they recognise each other and have built up various relationships. They're also more likely to back each other against attack. This is what happens in all social groupings. It's life, you just have to recognise it and then deal with it.

Clare Sudbery wrote:

Rich Priest wrote:You mention cliques - I think they exist to an extent wherever you go in life, and in a way it's inevitable because some people have been around longer than others and have had more time to get to know each other.

Yup. Of course there's a clique here, and it'd be silly to suggest otherwise. But that's pretty much inevitable, and if you don't like the word clique you could say the following instead: There is a subset of the membership who spend more time on here than others, thereore know each other better than anyone else and have running jokes. They are also more likely to talk to each other and respond well to each other than to newbies or less frequent posters, simply because they recognise each other and have built up various relationships. They're also more likely to back each other against attack. This is what happens in all social groupings. It's life, you just have to recognise it and then deal with it.

I feel in c4c if anything it's even stronger as many of us have met each other in real life, at various recording sessions and at CO- events. However, the CO- events at least are open for anyone to attend, and if anything I feel they make the community as a whole stronger, not just the cliques.

Then again, I wouldsay that...

Ben Wilson wrote:

Clare Sudbery wrote:

Rich Priest wrote:You mention cliques - I think they exist to an extent wherever you go in life, and in a way it's inevitable because some people have been around longer than others and have had more time to get to know each other.

Yup. Of course there's a clique here, and it'd be silly to suggest otherwise. But that's pretty much inevitable, and if you don't like the word clique you could say the following instead: There is a subset of the membership who spend more time on here than others, thereore know each other better than anyone else and have running jokes. They are also more likely to talk to each other and respond well to each other than to newbies or less frequent posters, simply because they recognise each other and have built up various relationships. They're also more likely to back each other against attack. This is what happens in all social groupings. It's life, you just have to recognise it and then deal with it.

I feel in c4c if anything it's even stronger as many of us have met each other in real life, at various recording sessions and at CO- events. However, the CO- events at least are open for anyone to attend, and if anything I feel they make the community as a whole stronger, not just the cliques.

Then again, I wouldsay that...

From experience of another forum I would tend to agree with that.

Mike Spellar wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote:During Susie's origins of words, you could clearly see Mike's score as 72 (this was his final score). Looks like Susie screwed up and redid her bit at the end.

Yeah Susie, kept saying Rogan Gosh instead of Rogan Josh !!!

Dunno what's with the . She was right and should have told them to stick their retake. It's Rogan Gosht. The 'josh' is just a Anglicisation. Rogan = Red. Gosht = Lamb.