The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #23729   Message #267371
Posted By: campfire
29-Jul-00 - 02:50 PM
Thread Name: The Mudcat clique??
Subject: RE: The Mudcat clique??
As a person who used to be around a lot more, and hasn't been lately - my observations, for what they're worth (probably not much) PLEASE don't take this as a complaint, just an observation.

There are certain persons who post frequently, with quick wits and a comment for everything. I often enjoy these immensely. Their comments are then commented upon and referred to - even if just a "that was a good one, so-and-so". Even the lesser gems of some of those around here seem to require further comment.

Others, perhaps lesser known persons, perhaps more shy about posting, perhaps less quick-witted, or perhaps a little thinner skinned, have often contributed equal "gems" - and they perhaps don't get "noticed". I can recall at least two threads in the last year where someone asked, after a posting that seemed (to them, anyway) to "kill" a thread, "What did I do wrong?" One such person commented that perhaps his brand of humor didn't belong here.

I'm NOT saying that Mudcat or anyone in it does any of this deliberately. Just looking at the number of "Welcome, New Person" threads shows how welcoming Mudcat can be. But there does appear to be an "in-crowd", the members of which can't say so much as "good-day" without generating 20 responses. Again, this is probably natural - it's like that in every "group" I've ever belonged to, anyway. Some "newbies" become members of the "in-crowd" almost immediately, others don't ever. It's probably a matter of individual personalities, just like in "real-life".

I hope I haven't angered anybody with this observation. I enjoy Mudat, and I'm the kind of person who enjoys being "on the fringe" anyway. I'm not suggesting that anything change - I certainly wouldn't want to see each posting by everybody generate 15 more - we'd fill up the whole WWWeb in a day and a half!

The word "clique" has negative connotations, of snobbery or intentional exclusion, so I would hesitate to use it here. But I don't think total denial of the concept is possible, either.

campfire