ER flash

Yes that's the one, thanks for searching! The thread itself isn't bad, just the 'yawn' comment that was upsetting for some.

I'm not very good at explaining things, but it's the little comments like that that make some people feel unwanted or small because they aren't helpful to anyone and I think totally different from giving a different cabbage. I know for everyone that read the original long thread it was covering old ground but for the OP, it obviously wasn't.

This isn't an example of 'cliqueyness' just one that might put off newbies.

You're determined to find it aren't you! ?

And look who the culprit was in this one too...although it was the Funky one who instigated it all. *Sings* Are you AJ in disguise?! Are you AJ in disguise!??!..

? Sorry, dog with a bone. I don't like leaving things hanging.

Nope, it's a piss take of people who require validation at every step of their wedding planning.

I dont know what thread thats on or who said it but if its the thread I am thinking that was around people being upset on WP that aspect of thier wedding were on the "unpopular" list? Not a dig at people planning thier weddings??

Im *such* a biatch ?

So I'm going to completely ignore forum etiquette and bump this post because as "newbie" I want to make this heard.

I have had absolutely no issue talking on these forums. If anyone has ever been "moany" or "cliquey" it's because I said something stupid or made a bad choice that I didn't previously know about. People are faaaar too sensitive. You should be able to just say to someone "that's not how we do it round here, just letting you know for next time" without anyone getting offended.

Mini asked me in another thread "I didn't see you wearing that to your wedding". I didn't throw a hissy - I thought "no, neither did I!!" ?

The point of a forum is to have fun, and if you take everything on the internet from a stranger harshly, then you probably shouldn't be allowed on the internet!?

Yes you are, and a massive, cliquey, bully!

Don't you talk to her like that! *snaps fingers*

I think someone's after Trickers' 'Scariest Hitcher' award this year...

I'm just trying to be friendly!!!! ?

I am also entirely taking the p***

How many of these Hitchers awards are there?? I've heard so many variations.

so in all seriousness, who have I offended? I will go and apologise to them.

I meant Mini [

?

I'm amazed to hear that there are Facebook groups open for certain categories of brides. Facebook groups where they discuss what goes on on other Hitched-related boards.

If that ain't a clique, I don't know what is.

/sarcasm

And furthermore, I'm starting to formulate the argument that the OMs are the people here that are highlighted and picked upon. If a post of mine was disagreed with by a series of posters all belonging to the Facebook 2014 group, I would never realise and could never therefore accuse anyone of gang or clique tactics. However, OMs are a recognisable group (talking about weddings in the past tense, high post counts) and it's very easy to perceive the OM's acting against you as a group.

? My bad.

But this is only on WP, on OT the wedding planners would be called a fluffy clique, I'm sure it wouldn't be appreciated if we came over there fluffing up your threads, just as some don't like the bluntness of the OMs over here.

It just happens that you can't see the facebook group, but I would be just as happy to say what I say on there, on here (as I am currently)

Are you saying there are people who left because I said "yawn?"

No not this specifically, just this type of thing.

I feel like I just turned over two pages at once lol

bloody hell, feel a right old cow now.

Not specifically from you either though. You might be in the running for scariest hitcher, but no ?

Last year I was second most present or something so that's quite a change.

Am I scary?! I hardly think so?

Faebelle are you in the 2012 or 2013 group?

I know there were a lot of people in the 2012 group who had only been on Hitched a few times and felt it was 'cliquey' so therefore decided to just use the FB page instead. They didn't give it chance and made judgements too quickly and we did have a few barneys over there because of it.

It was nothing to do with you personally Mini as this happened quite a while ago so don't feel bad.

I don't think you are, but to a newbie whos used to a bit of fluff, I suppose you could be. ETA, this could be applied to a lot of people, possibly me included.

Still haven't worked out how to double quote but pinky I'm 2013

This has been a very interesting read, and I have to say that from my experiences everyone has been really helpful to both myself and other Hitchers. It is also inevitable that people who have been using the forum for a long time will have formed strong friendships - it would be naive to think otherwise.

However, there has also been a couple of occasions where I feel some posters' comments have been belittled or where a "them and us" mentality has come into play.

The infamous "Bridesmaid Rant" post from the other day had a corker in its depths; as we all know, someone posted a link to AJ's wedding website. Myself, and other "newbies" have no idea who he is and (I) have no interest in him as he clearly doesn't post on here anymore. I felt no need to open the link, and as such, I didn't.

Comments then came in from some OMs saying they felt it was inappropriate to bring his wedding website into things - I thought that was a fair comment, UNTIL it was suggested the reason that it was inappropriate was because they thought the "newbies" would then feel it was OK to rip AJ apart. I felt this was very unjustified and borderline hypocritical because the majority of the discussion and derogatory comments ("My eyes are burning" etc.) about the "Brummie glamour model" up to this point had mostly all come from OMs - so why even bring new people into it?! I personally didn't see the relevance. Unless this has been a problem in the past that I haven't seen.

I have copied the comments from the other thread:

"there's a possibility, because of the way AJ is mentioned sometimes, that newer members may have picked things apart a bit. If that makes sense?"

They are all on the other thread!

Kells - on phone so not even going to try quoting blocks. It was me that objected to the posting of AJ's blog and my comment is the second you mention.

Please read the comments in response to the blog link. 'Newbies' and comments of 'Oh. Wow.', 'Oh Lordy', 'He doesn't look like I imagined', 'Not what I pictured'. Now, while those comments don't necessarily reflect what they intended to convey, on superficial reading, they appeared to be heading in a dangerous direction and not one intended by Knees (I'm positive of that). Given that it was newbies commenting (and by newbies, it was clear I meant people who didn't know AJ), I think it was entirely fair to be open about where my concerns lay.

As above, it was not only OMs commenting. The immediate posts, and let's say they were ambiguous in intent, were from newbies. So your irony meter is off!

Perhaps you should reconsider what you think I intended when I used quotation marks around the word 'permission'?

No, I'm afraid the internet is serious business that needs to be discussed.

Oh Lord, what did I start!!!

ForTheLoveOfMrsBrown, I think you make a good point - as a 'newbie' I have no idea who else is a newbie and who's been around for ages.

I agree that if I ask for opinions on something I want people's real opinions, but (just giving a 'newbie's' perspective) sometimes people express views which are perfectly fine but in language that, shall we say, isn't very diplomatic. I suppose the comments could be between people who know each other really well, but when I was first on here I didn't really get that, so I thought 'damn some of these people are MEAN!' On a forum there are old friends, but there are also always new people, so there will always be a balance of treading carefully and being honest, that people will inevitably all have a different sense of.

There's a 'welcome to hitched' thread at the top, which tells you all the abbreviations. That's useful, but I think a solution to stop some of these discussions coming up over and over again would be for someone to write a slightly longer version that just explains a bit more about how it all works - how to attach pictures, how to search for old threads and what 'bouncing means', that kind of thing - obviously this might get political in itself as some people seem to hate bouncing whilst others hate multiple threads on the same topic!

Anyway, I'm quite glad I now get the politics of this place a bit more!

8 pages and not even 1 sparkly ring... meh!