c4countdown

Ian Dent wrote:Ian V, imagine not having any real friends, and then not having any friends on here either. It would be terrible.

Surely there's always going to be someone in the euqilc (see what I did there) to share comiserations about life, or the lack thereof.

1 - anything said in a private forum should be private at all times and someone hacking into it should be prosecuted as the last major case of computer hacking ended up on a guy being put on death row (if i remmeber right)
2 - I bet there is thousands of perfectly normal threads in this "sanctum" which haven't been posted.
3 - obviously somethings should never be said and somethings are without doubt quite cruel but noone should ever have got to see them so i agree its no different than a couple of guys slagging off people in the pub.
4 - I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT, so lets all go back to playing apterous and writing sensible threads on here!

Scott Gillies wrote:writing sensible threads on here!

lol wat

Other members of the proletariat will be pleased to learn that I now have full access to the workings of the Sanctum, or the Politburo as they are thinking of re-naming themselves. While there is some debate about their group, it is rather less than one would have hoped. Jon makes waspish comments, Kirk plays the village idiot, and Charlie has gone very quiet. Rumour has it that he has acquired a white cat which he strokes interminably. Most of the youngsters are happy not to rock the boat, for fear of being banished from his presence. The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Strangely, they seem to think the only issue is about them being nasty behind people's backs, or that there is a wish to stop friends from being friends. None of them seem to think that there is an issue about running a forum where most of the membership are given only partial access - and keeping that fact a secret.

Obviously this is only a very brief summary, and if anyone thinks I am misrepresenting them I hope they will correct me. It would be good to hear the views of people like Mike and Howard, who we all respect.

David Williams wrote:Other members of the proletariat will be pleased to learn that I now have full access to the workings of the Sanctum, or the Politburo as they are thinking of re-naming themselves. While there is some debate about their group, it is rather less than one would have hoped. Jon makes waspish comments, Kirk plays the village idiot, and Charlie has gone very quiet. Rumour has it that he has acquired a white cat which he strokes interminably. Most of the youngsters are happy not to rock the boat, for fear of being banished from his presence. The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Strangely, they seem to think the only issue is about them being nasty behind people's backs, or that there is a wish to stop friends from being friends. None of them seem to think that there is an issue about running a forum where most of the membership are given only partial access - and keeping that fact a secret.

Obviously this is only a very brief summary, and if anyone thinks I am misrepresenting them I hope they will correct me. It would be good to hear the views of people like Mike and Howard, who we all respect.

501. Not so round.

I've gone quiet because I've said what I've got to say, to which clearly no one paid the slightest heed and everyone wants to have their moment of moral superiority while we discover that only 38 people in the entire world would ever say something privately that they wouldn't say publicly, and by extraordinary coincidence those people are the exact membership of the Sanctum. Well, feel free. Personally I stand by everything I said in the manner in which it was intended, so those of you who can't distinguish a joke, irony, exaggeration or shock humour from serious comment should probably refrain from reading other people's private conversations with no context, shouldn't you? You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

To answer your point David, is it okay with you if we have a private conversation to which you're not invited? Is it okay if we have it on the Internet? Is it okay if we use a forum? What about a forum that already exists? At what point exactly do you feel so immensely offended to discover that people sometimes say things that you don't get to hear?

But again, I don't know why I bothered posting, because almost no one is interested in talking any kind of sense about this. Personally I have more interesting things to do and I assume that most of the readership of this forum does too.

Charlie Reams wrote:I've gone quiet because I've said what I've got to say, to which clearly no one paid the slightest heed and everyone wants to have their moment of moral superiority while we discover that only 38 people in the entire world would ever say something privately that they wouldn't say publicly, and by extraordinary coincidence those people are the exact membership of the Sanctum. Well, feel free. Personally I stand by everything I said in the manner in which it was intended, so those of you who can't distinguish a joke, irony, exaggeration or shock humour from serious comment should probably refrain from reading other people's private conversations with no context, shouldn't you? You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

To answer your point David, is it okay with you if we have a private conversation to which you're not invited? Is it okay if we have it on the Internet? Is it okay if we use a forum? What about a forum that already exists? At what point exactly do you feel so immensely offended to discover that people sometimes say things that you don't get to hear?

But again, I don't know why I bothered posting, because almost no one is interested in talking any kind of sense about this. Personally I have more interesting things to do and I assume that most of the readership of this forum does too.

I go out walking with a group of people every week. Some of them are obviously closer friends than others, and no doubt meet up on other occasions. It would be odd of this wasn't so. But if I discovered that everyone else in the group but me met up for a drink every week and I wasn't invited, and they'd be doing so for ages, I wouldn't have a problem with what they were saying, but I would think it was time to find some other walking companions. Quite where the line between OK and not OK is I can't say. But you're the wrong side of it.

David Williams wrote:The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Known better than what exactly, David? Having been invited into the Sanctum by Charlie, do you think Howard and I should have said no thanks? For what it's worth, I'm not particularly in favour of regularly slagging people off in the Sanctum (as you will now have seen, no doubt...) or anywhere else for that matter, although to say I don't do it would be a lie (as I'm sure it would for 99.99% of people on the planet), but as lots of people have already pointed out, it was never supposed to be for public consumption. How would you like it if you found out all your private phone conversations had suddenly been published on the Internet? I think just about everything on the subject has probably been said, so I'll shut up now.

David Williams wrote: I go out walking with a group of people every week. Some of them are obviously closer friends than others, and no doubt meet up on other occasions. It would be odd of this wasn't so. But if I discovered that everyone else in the group but me met up for a drink every week and I wasn't invited, and they'd be doing so for ages, I wouldn't have a problem with what they were saying, but I would think it was time to find some other walking companions.

Right, but if you went walking with several hundred people every week, and a subgroup of them also went walking without inviting you, that's (to me) no big deal. That's the more relevant scale when you're talking about C4C.

David Williams wrote: Quite where the line between OK and not OK is I can't say. But you're the wrong side of it.

There's clearly going to be off-forum discussion of on-forum events, so to me it makes no difference what the exact location and format of that discussion is. Saying "I don't know what is okay, I just don't like this" is completely unconstructive and seems like a weak argument for someone of your obvious intelligence, which makes me suspect it's a rationalisation of your feeling of exclusion. I don't accept that there's anything morally reprehensible about using the same forum for both purposes, it's just convenient. If that's an insurmountable disagreement then I'll be sad to see you go, since I enjoy your posts and we've had many amusing private ( ) exchanges too.

My thread wasn't too bad. Pretty funny, actually.

Charlie Reams wrote:I've gone quiet because I've said what I've got to say, to which clearly no one paid the slightest heed and everyone wants to have their moment of moral superiority while we discover that only 38 people in the entire world would ever say something privately that they wouldn't say publicly, and by extraordinary coincidence those people are the exact membership of the Sanctum. Well, feel free. Personally I stand by everything I said in the manner in which it was intended, so those of you who can't distinguish a joke, irony, exaggeration or shock humour from serious comment should probably refrain from reading other people's private conversations with no context, shouldn't you? You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

To answer your point David, is it okay with you if we have a private conversation to which you're not invited? Is it okay if we have it on the Internet? Is it okay if we use a forum? What about a forum that already exists? At what point exactly do you feel so immensely offended to discover that people sometimes say things that you don't get to hear?

But again, I don't know why I bothered posting, because almost no one is interested in talking any kind of sense about this. Personally I have more interesting things to do and I assume that most of the readership of this forum does too.

just for the record charlie i agree 100% with what you've written and as you're we aware i'm not involved in any of it.

Scott Gillies wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I've gone quiet because I've said what I've got to say, to which clearly no one paid the slightest heed and everyone wants to have their moment of moral superiority while we discover that only 38 people in the entire world would ever say something privately that they wouldn't say publicly, and by extraordinary coincidence those people are the exact membership of the Sanctum. Well, feel free. Personally I stand by everything I said in the manner in which it was intended, so those of you who can't distinguish a joke, irony, exaggeration or shock humour from serious comment should probably refrain from reading other people's private conversations with no context, shouldn't you? You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

To answer your point David, is it okay with you if we have a private conversation to which you're not invited? Is it okay if we have it on the Internet? Is it okay if we use a forum? What about a forum that already exists? At what point exactly do you feel so immensely offended to discover that people sometimes say things that you don't get to hear?

But again, I don't know why I bothered posting, because almost no one is interested in talking any kind of sense about this. Personally I have more interesting things to do and I assume that most of the readership of this forum does too.

just for the record charlie i agree 100% with what you've written and as you're we aware i'm not involved in any of it.

Just for the record Charlie, I agree 100% with what you've written despite being involved in it, but would hope that I would still agree in any other circumstance too.

Mike Brown wrote:

David Williams wrote:The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Known better than what exactly, David? Having been invited into the Sanctum by Charlie, do you think Howard and I should have said no thanks? For what it's worth, I'm not particularly in favour of regularly slagging people off in the Sanctum (as you will now have seen, no doubt...) or anywhere else for that matter, although to say I don't do it would be a lie (as I'm sure it would for 99.99% of people on the planet), but as lots of people have already pointed out, it was never supposed to be for public consumption. How would you like it if you found out all your private phone conversations had suddenly been published on the Internet? I think just about everything on the subject has probably been said, so I'll shut up now.

I can only say, Mike, that if I'd been asked I'd have thought the whole thing was a bit weird, and counter to the spirit of an open forum. The secrecy would also be a red flag for me. The fact that someone like you doesn't think so makes me question that view, but hasn't changed my mind. I'm also quite sure that I'd never have said anything that I wouldn't have been prepared to see on the wider forum. If I had got into it I'd be annoyed at it all being made public, but more out of embarrassment at being found out than concern about my comments being seen by others. Sharing secrets with 38 people on the internet is not easy.

Scott Gillies wrote:1 - anything said in a private forum should be private at all times and someone hacking into it should be prosecuted as the last major case of computer hacking ended up on a guy being put on death row (if i remmeber right)
2 - I bet there is thousands of perfectly normal threads in this "sanctum" which haven't been posted.
3 - obviously somethings should never be said and somethings are without doubt quite cruel but noone should ever have got to see them so i agree its no different than a couple of guys slagging off people in the pub.
4 - I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT, so lets all go back to playing apterous and writing sensible threads on here!

This.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David Williams wrote: I go out walking with a group of people every week. Some of them are obviously closer friends than others, and no doubt meet up on other occasions. It would be odd of this wasn't so. But if I discovered that everyone else in the group but me met up for a drink every week and I wasn't invited, and they'd be doing so for ages, I wouldn't have a problem with what they were saying, but I would think it was time to find some other walking companions.

Right, but if you went walking with several hundred people every week, and a subgroup of them also went walking without inviting you, that's (to me) no big deal. That's the more relevant scale when you're talking about C4C.

No, that's taking the analogy too far. The equivalent would be if they were somehow sneaking off in the middle of a walk to do something extra without the rest of us knowing.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David Williams wrote: Quite where the line between OK and not OK is I can't say. But you're the wrong side of it.

There's clearly going to be off-forum discussion of on-forum events, so to me it makes no difference what the exact location and format of that discussion is. Saying "I don't know what is okay, I just don't like this" is completely unconstructive and seems like a weak argument for someone of your obvious intelligence, which makes me suspect it's a rationalisation of your feeling of exclusion. I don't accept that there's anything morally reprehensible about using the same forum for both purposes, it's just convenient. If that's an insurmountable disagreement then I'll be sad to see you go, since I enjoy your posts and we've had many amusing private ( ) exchanges too.

Should someone go to prison for stealing a million pounds? Yes. Should someone go to prison for stealing one penny? No. Therefore there is a sum of money that should not incur a prison sentence, and a sum of money one penny higher that should. And a person of my obvious intelligence cannot say what that figure is, but that shouldn't lead someone of your obvious intelligence to draw any adverse conclusions about my state of mind.

I don't suppose I'll be disappearing, but from now on I'll be assuming that I'm contributing a point of view, perhaps with incomplete information, rather than participating in a debate.

I recall private exchanges on Dress Codes and Defending Your Property. Were there others?

David Williams wrote:No, that's taking the analogy too far. The equivalent would be if they were somehow sneaking off in the middle of a walk to do something extra without the rest of us knowing.

You were the one who introduced the analogy of them meeting up without you, which Charlie then continued. Now they're sneaking off during the walk?

David Williams wrote:Therefore there is a sum of money that should not incur a prison sentence, and a sum of money one penny higher that should.

This is the sort of reasoning that can prove 1=0.

Oh hang on, he's gone. While we're all walking together - how rude! Where's he gone, and who with?

Some points to bear in mind:

1. Charlie has done more for the online Countdown community than any person in existence. When he started the sanctum he was feeling utterly dejected and demoralized, in my opinion, and felt the need to vent. Let's bear in mind he made this move after a Countdown hiatus; I think Damian should empathise since he often vents his frustration with the conduct of those in this forum.
2. Most, if not all, of the character assassinations in the sanctum were based on a rather cursory assessment of people's personalities. A case in point for me is James Robinson, who I found annoying at first spec, but have come to regard him as a rather endearing individual. Perhaps we shouldn't make snap judgements about people but we all do it so fuck off!
3. Quite a few of the posts in the sanctum involve a level of profanity that would be inappropriate in the main forum.
4. Richard Brittain may have been right to expose the sanctum but I am not sure how he justifies using Kirk's password to access his apterous and email account.
5. Quite a few of the threads in there related to personal experience, meant for a private audience, where people were seeking advice on issues relating to delicate information. Their public exposure does not assist in dealing with these issues.

I know people's prides have been hurt but you have to understand the context and the dynamic of these private conversations. When we initially spoke about Chris, for instance, he was a guy who blatantly cheated but never admitted it. A lot of us practise incessantly and found this repugnant but Chris proved he was good on his own merits and has now come full circle and admitted his earlier indiscretion. If anyone thinks I am being duplicitous in my treatment of Chris then scour the apterous chat logs where I 'out-and-out' tell everyone he used to cheat.

I am the member of other forums where they have a facility where anyone can set up their own, secret, clan forum and invite whomsoever. Perhaps this would fracture this community even more?

I really don't know ... or truly give a fuck.

Charlie Reams wrote:You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

So basically it's fine and normal to say a lot of shit things about people because they are a bit different behind their backs as long as they don't find out. If you think there's something wrong with that you clearly have no sense of humour and you're a bit of an idiot. It's not your place to say you find that unfair unless you never said anything bad about anyone ever. If you disagree with what I say you're not talking any sense. Is that right?

I get it, people like to put others down. People enjoy hating others if they don't do things the "right" way. I just find it amazing you can't even see how treating people like that is a bit shit. Would you really be OK with people starting a thread about you and all the things they didn't like. They post pictures of you and your family to make fun of? I mean really, some of you guys were outraged when those people on the other forum said comparatively innocent things.

It's kind of a mob mentality in my eyes. "Hahaha let's all laugh at this person because they're different". I put up with a lot of that BS at school. I expect it of the average group of school bullies. I wouldn't expect it of some of the cleverest and funniest people I've probably ever met.

I find it hard to disagree with you though, just because you're usually right about things. But I still can't get my head around putting people down behind their backs and then just carrying on like that's fine. Maybe it's my problem and I'm just a humourless idiot with nothing good to say like you think. But that's my opinion on it.

Personally I have more interesting things to do and I assume that most of the readership of this forum does too.

Right. I know this thread has overrun its course and maybe everyone would prefer I just stfu but whatever... I just think putting all that stuff down to context and humour is a lame excuse for acting like a dick.

I hope it's OK to disagree with you without invoking the wrath of Reams and being considered stupid and not worth much. I kind of doubt it though.

PS - this isn't just a massive whine about being butthurt about not being cool enough for the clique. I agree there's nothing wrong with a separate forum. I just didn't know people spent that much time putting others down.

Jimmy Gough wrote:I mean really, some of you guys were outraged when those people on the other forum said comparatively innocent things.

That wasn't the point at all, as has already been covered in this thread.

K, sorry. Do you think I make any valid points at all?

Jimmy Gough wrote:K, sorry. Do you think I make any valid points at all?

You don't like people being mean about each other (I think is the gist). It'd be a bit daft to try and argue that's a "bad" or "wrong" position to have (although you have dished out the odd caustic remark yourself, so...)

But, yeah I dunno what to say. I'm not a Sanctum spokesperson. People aren't always gonna get on. And piss-taking is 'normal'. Yeah, it can get out of hand, but even best mates take the piss out of each other constantly. Well, all mine do anyway. I can't do anything really other than repeat the comparison already made several times in this thread, about mates chatting in a pub. We all have mates that we chat (bitch) to about other mates, work colleagues etc, don't we? Sure, it looks a lot worse written down, and clearly some people have said stuff that they regret, but I can't speak on behalf of them. They do their own thing. Just because they did it in a space I shared with them, doesn't mean fuck all about me or anyone else but themselves, no more than what I write in this forum reflects on you Jimmy.

Yeah. I know we all do say bad stuff. I very much doubt I haven't said just as much shit things about people as there is on the Sanctum. But I'd regret them. I suppose it's where the line is between piss-taking and just full-on being nasty about people who can't defend themselves. I definitely might've got that that line wrong. Was just saying how I saw it.

So, to conclude:

• Some people spoke to some people about some people. This caused some people to be upset. However, some people have apologised for what they said about some people, even though they were only talking to some people.
• Some people feel some people should be frowned upon for talking about some people, but some people disagree and think some people have said sorry for what they said to some people about some people, therefore some people should be forgiven.
• Richard Brittain is an idiot.

Jimmy Gough wrote:Yeah. I know we all do say bad stuff. I very much doubt I haven't said just as much shit things about people as there is on the Sanctum. But I'd regret them. I suppose it's where the line is between piss-taking and just full-on being nasty about people who can't defend themselves. I definitely might've got that that line wrong. Was just saying how I saw it.

Oh well, I'm happy for where that line is for me. Anyone that I've been "full-on nasty" about, I'm pretty sure they already knew that I didn't like them, and I expect everyone else has already got that impression from any interaction on this main board. As I said, I can't speak for other people, and it's nothing to do with me what they've chosen to write. I don't feel I really have to defend it (even though I have done a bit) any more than you or David Williams should have to defend what I write here.


(One slight problem is that I am a bit of an evil/sick fucker when it comes to humour, and I could still actually find a well-constructed, imaginative and/or particularly colourful insult amusing, even if I didn't necessarily agree with the sentiment. But I know you don't like the "humour" defence, and actually I'm not sure there are even any instances of that (even though it seems very likely), so I won't even go there )

Lol, I told you I fail at humour.

Jimmy Gough wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You're the best possible argument in favour of having a Sanctum in the first place.

So basically it's fine and normal to say a lot of shit things about people because they are a bit different behind their backs as long as they don't find out. If you think there's something wrong with that you clearly have no sense of humour and you're a bit of an idiot. It's not your place to say you find that unfair unless you never said anything bad about anyone ever. If you disagree with what I say you're not talking any sense. Is that right?

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing some kind of blanket defence for every single post in there, people wrote their own posts and are answerable individually for those. If anyone objects to a particular thing that I wrote then I'm happy to discuss it with them (preferably in private to save further offence) and I'll issue palinodes as appropriate.

Firstly I think it's wrong to suggest that the Sanctum was simply a place for the "same" to mouth off about the "different", given that it included some of C4C's oldest, gayest, mentalest and gingerest users, not to mention myself. People were judged on elements of their character which aren't simply different but obnoxious, and when other things were said (e.g. calling someone a "fat paedo"), that was never the real reason they were disliked. At least for me. As ever I can't speak for everyone else.

Nor am I claiming that every post in there was intended as a joke and everyone should lighten up. What I did want to respond to is a particular kind of reaction to the whole debacle which stems from an inability to separate the jokes from whatever real points were being made. To give a concrete example, one person was very upset that I called them an "ugly cunt" when I've been perfectly friendly to them in person. If I had in fact done that, they would (I think) have been quite justified in being upset. But to me, it's obvious from the thread that I was encouraging someone else to call them an ugly cunt in a certain situation, and the humourous element is the total social inappropriate and disproportionate manner of going through with that. And I knew perfectly well that they wouldn't actually say it, and that the person in question is neither ugly nor a cunt. You can disagree about whether that's humourous but the whole reason the Sanctum existed is so that I wouldn't have to worry about the different ways a wide group of people would interpret something, and instead I was talking exclusively to an audience of people who would either find it funny too or, at least, give me the benefit of the doubt and ignore it. Therefore I didn't feel the need to detail the exact point I was making, as I now have done (and it wasn't it tedious to read?). Remove the post from that audience and of course people will get upset. Blame lies with the person who made that switch of audience and (to a lesser extent because I appreciate the existence of curiosity) the people who chose to read these discussions knowing full well that they were never intended to. But it's much more convenient to blame me. And I guess I don't really mind, which is why I got bored of writing in this topic in the first place.

Kai , you are much too young to talk so much sense. Grow down!

Charlie Reams wrote:(and it wasn't it tedious to read?)

Actually, no. There have been remarkable degrees of sense from both 'sides' of the argument, and as someone who loves C4C for the richness of intelligence and characters here, and who finds internet forums an interesting phenomenon, I've found this thread both awkward and fascinating.

I still go by the advice 'never write anything down that you wouldn't want read out in court' - I assume that anything written in the digital domain is capable of being copied and pasted - and I'm particularly aware of that when I'm being critical of someone in any form (even in jest): I assume that sooner or later the object of my criticism will see what I've written. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur in this respect.

I'm not sure if we will ever resolve the problems caused by the change in circumstances nowadays where 'chat' has moved from the pub to archived written-down discussions: the written word will always feel more permanent and weighty than a snatched comment in a pub. So while I can understand how private forums have taken over some of the role of pub banter, I can see the higher risk of upset they bring.

Mike Brown wrote:

David Williams wrote:The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Known better than what exactly, David? Having been invited into the Sanctum by Charlie, do you think Howard and I should have said no thanks? For what it's worth, I'm not particularly in favour of regularly slagging people off in the Sanctum (as you will now have seen, no doubt...) or anywhere else for that matter, although to say I don't do it would be a lie (as I'm sure it would for 99.99% of people on the planet), but as lots of people have already pointed out, it was never supposed to be for public consumption. How would you like it if you found out all your private phone conversations had suddenly been published on the Internet? I think just about everything on the subject has probably been said, so I'll shut up now.

Just to back Mike up, I'm pretty certain he's never slagged anyone in The Sanctum, just as he hasn't on this forum.

He has, however, contributed to the other discussions that have taken place in there, which, for one reason or another, were deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting. (That reason not being so that people could slag others off with impunity.)

Jon Corby wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

David Williams wrote:The only unease comes from the likes of Mike Brown and Howard Somerset, who one would have thought were old enough to have known better.

Known better than what exactly, David? Having been invited into the Sanctum by Charlie, do you think Howard and I should have said no thanks? For what it's worth, I'm not particularly in favour of regularly slagging people off in the Sanctum (as you will now have seen, no doubt...) or anywhere else for that matter, although to say I don't do it would be a lie (as I'm sure it would for 99.99% of people on the planet), but as lots of people have already pointed out, it was never supposed to be for public consumption. How would you like it if you found out all your private phone conversations had suddenly been published on the Internet? I think just about everything on the subject has probably been said, so I'll shut up now.

Just to back Mike up, I'm pretty certain he's never slagged anyone in The Sanctum, just as he hasn't on this forum.

He has, however, contributed to the other discussions that have taken place in there, which, for one reason or another, were deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting. (That reason not being so that people could slag others off with impunity.)

And, to be equally clear, I never imagined or implied that Mike would have done anything untoward. It's the notion that there are discussions that are "deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting". I'm not bothered enough about the content to do more than skim through what we've been pointed at, but there didn't seem to be anything "deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting" for reasons of its grave importance and sensitivity.
http://www.thesanctum.co.uk/

David Williams wrote:http://www.thesanctum.co.uk/

If you're paying David I certainly wouldn't say no, I could use a good massage.

Jon Corby wrote:Just to back Mike up, I'm pretty certain he's never slagged anyone in The Sanctum, just as he hasn't on this forum.

He has, however, contributed to the other discussions that have taken place in there, which, for one reason or another, were deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting. (That reason not being so that people could slag others off with impunity.)

Thanks Jon, appreciate it. You'll be losing your reputation as Mr Nasty if you're not careful! Still, there's just a little bit of me that's thankful I never succumbed to the temptation to join in on some of the debates that were being had and saved any comments for real life conversations.

D'you know, I was in Disneyland (awesome time, wide-eyed 4yo for very entertaining company, thanks for asking) and missed all of this. Is anyone else wondering if there's a thread about all of this in The Sanctum and wondering what's been written there?

David Williams wrote:And, to be equally clear, I never imagined or implied that Mike would have done anything untoward. It's the notion that there are discussions that are "deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting". I'm not bothered enough about the content to do more than skim through what we've been pointed at, but there didn't seem to be anything "deemed more appropriate to be posted in a more private setting" for reasons of its grave importance and sensitivity.

Call it elitism if you like, David (and I guess that's exactly what it is), but I sympathise to some extent with the reason Charlie set up the Sanctum in the first place, i.e. he was fed up wading (ironically, perhaps) through what he considered to be banal or uninteresting conversations on the forum. I probably wouldn't have done the same thing if I'd been running things, but it's his show, so fair enough, and I admit I was pleased to be invited to join in, given I know pretty much all the people in there, having met them on several occasions. I was less comfortable, perhaps, with the threads aimed at individuals, but it's a free country and (naively) I don't suppose anyone expected the whole thing to be displayed for all to see several months down the track. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned, and I'm sure at least some of them will be.

Ben Wilson wrote:

David Williams wrote:http://www.thesanctum.co.uk/

If you're paying David I certainly wouldn't say no, I could use a good massage.

Would prefer a couple more commas in this.

Mike Brown wrote:I sympathise to some extent with the reason Charlie set up the Sanctum in the first place, i.e. he was fed up wading (ironically, perhaps) through what he considered to be banal or uninteresting conversations on the forum.

Not sure about this. I can see that he seems to have been successful in removing a lot of banal and uninteresting conversations to a place where he doesn't have to wade through them (and even been thoughtful enough to ensure that most of us can't even see them). But if that was really his intention, why did he invite you?

David Williams wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:I sympathise to some extent with the reason Charlie set up the Sanctum in the first place, i.e. he was fed up wading (ironically, perhaps) through what he considered to be banal or uninteresting conversations on the forum.

Not sure about this. I can see that he seems to have been successful in removing a lot of banal and uninteresting conversations to a place where he doesn't have to wade through them (and even been thoughtful enough to ensure that most of us can't even see them). But if that was really his intention, why did he invite you?

Would you like some of my grapes? They're not sour like yours.

Oh noes, Richard Brittain has hacked the Sanctum again! Now everyone's seen us saying such things as "I'm surprised anyone really cares about this" and "that Richard Brittain is a bit of a dick isn't he?". How will we ever recover our public image?

I like Alice in Chains too!

David Williams wrote:Not sure about this. I can see that he seems to have been successful in removing a lot of banal and uninteresting conversations to a place where he doesn't have to wade through them (and even been thoughtful enough to ensure that most of us can't even see them). But if that was really his intention, why did he invite you?

Ouch. Sounds like you should be in the Sanctum instead of me.

Mike Brown wrote:

David Williams wrote:Not sure about this. I can see that he seems to have been successful in removing a lot of banal and uninteresting conversations to a place where he doesn't have to wade through them (and even been thoughtful enough to ensure that most of us can't even see them). But if that was really his intention, why did he invite you?

Ouch. Sounds like you should be in the Sanctum instead of me.

Snigger. I agree with Ryan.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

David Williams wrote:Not sure about this. I can see that he seems to have been successful in removing a lot of banal and uninteresting conversations to a place where he doesn't have to wade through them (and even been thoughtful enough to ensure that most of us can't even see them). But if that was really his intention, why did he invite you?

Ouch. Sounds like you should be in the Sanctum instead of me.

Snigger. I agree with Ryan.

Are you listening to Alice in Chains and eating grapes too?

Wow. I paid an occasional visit just to check out the Pointless threads and all this is going on.

I'm not surprised that The Sanctum exists and can understand why some people will have been hurt at the things they've read there (for which I mainly blame RB, not the authors). Judging by the stuff in my thread I seem to have escaped lightly. During the time that I read and posted regularly on C4C, the only person for whom I developed an intense dislike was Matthew Green, so it's mildly amusing to see that he felt much the same about me. Most other Sanctumites seem to feel I have positive and negative qualities, which is hardly shock news - who doesn't?

Two comments did cause me a little surprise though:

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, I don't have a problem with Phil either (even though I know he doesn't like me).

Based on what evidence Jon? We've had spats on the forums occasionally but on the couple of occasions when a hint of genuine acrimony has crept in we've exchanged friendly PMs about it and been fine. I even expressed my disappointment that you weren't going to be attending the Series 60 finals as you were one of the people I was hoping to meet.

And then there was this:

Jim Bentley wrote:I think the most galling thing for Phil (and Sue for that matter) is that despite their posting lots of stuff and going along to watch recordings, etc., they haven't been accepted into THE CLIQUE. And they never will be, and they both know that.

I read this, thought "What a load of bollocks," then thought about it some more and decided that (on my part at least - I can't speak for Sue) Jim is probably right. Pretty shrewd observation Jim and I wish it wasn't true but it is - or was. When I posted regularly to C4C I saw the core of its membership as a largely young, intelligent, lively, humorous crowd and wanted to fit in and be liked. I made some good friends here (several of whom are members of The Sanctum), but unsurprisingly the majority are indifferent at best to my presence and sensing that was probably one of the contributing factors in my losing interest in posting regularly.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, I don't have a problem with Phil either (even though I know he doesn't like me).

Based on what evidence Jon? We've had spats on the forums occasionally but on the couple of occasions when a hint of genuine acrimony has crept in we've exchanged friendly PMs about it and been fine. I even expressed my disappointment that you weren't going to be attending the Series 60 finals as you were one of the people I was hoping to meet.

Yeah fair enough - I definitely should have said "think" rather than "know". I just got that impression from the spats we did have. If that isn't the case then I'm genuinely pleased. I'd go into more detail about everything, but, meh, it's all there in the thread.

Likewise Phil, I always felt like you disliked me quite strongly even though (as far as I can remember) we had only the most minor disagreements and actually have a similar outlook on many things. I allowed or probably encouraged that to escalate into a mutual resentment completely out of proportion to whatever my objection actually was, which in any case I genuinely can't remember, and I'm not going to go looking for it. With the benefit of hindsight I have no problem with you at all, and in person I thought you were a quality chap.

Edit. I was about to post this in the Sanctum but see no harm in making it public knowledge:
If the upshot of all this Sanctum business is to regain Phil Reynolds and lose one or two people I didn't like anyway then it'll make my week.

I seem to remember a time when it was accepted opinion that basically Phil Reynolds = Matt Morrison, and Matt made the clique...

Gavin Chipper wrote:I seem to remember a time when it was accepted opinion that basically Phil Reynolds = Matt Morrison, and Matt made the clique...

I love Phil, and PMed him earlier to say something similar to Charlie above. Not sure how the hell you came to the me = him summary though.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I seem to remember a time when it was accepted opinion that basically Phil Reynolds = Matt Morrison, and Matt made the clique...

I love Phil, and PMed him earlier to say something similar to Charlie above. Not sure how the hell you came to the me = him summary though.

Not as in one person with two accounts but I thought your posts were similar a while back but didn't say anything but then others did so I thought "it's not just me". You are essentially the same person - you just have to accept this.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I seem to remember a time when it was accepted opinion that basically Phil Reynolds = Matt Morrison, and Matt made the clique...

Haha that's amazing I remember thinking this too! Perhaps this means Gevin = Me. I'm ok with this revelation Stay away from Emma though!

My sister-in-law in downtown Vancouver took her dog for a walk the other day. Suddenly it was seized by a racoon, which tried to drag it under a parked car, and it was only rescued (unscathed) after a strenuous tug-of-war. Neither she nor her neighbours have ever seen a racoon in the area before. She and my wife both think this is just a bizarre piece of bad luck, but those of us who are aware of the far-reaching tentacles of The Sanctum, and its awesome need to eliminate its opponents, know what's really going on.

I will not be intimidated! Attack me if you must, but stay away from my family.

Here is the latest instalment.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Here is the latest instalment.

Was about to post almost exactly the same thing . Julian Assange + Richard Brittain = The Riddler in Batman Forever.

I haven't seen the contents of the Sanctum, and have no idea what it contains beyond hints from others' postings. So I can't comment on what individuals have said there.

But to me, it makes perfect sense for it to be there, and I do not find its existence objectionable.

When I first started reading this fascinating board, it quickly became clear that some commentators were more warmly received than others, and I thought at that time that some of the angry/sharp responses I was reading were inappropriate for a public 'group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.'

I wondered if the board headline ought to be altered in some way, to show that you were only welcome if of a certain mindset.

I suggest the Sanctum went some way to achieving the same thing, by being a private place where comments that would cause offence if made more openly might safely be made. I dare say that after it started, there were fewer angry/sharp responses on the wider forum than would otherwise have been the case, which I consider to be a good thing.

Not everything's better out than in; some things that are out are better hidden.

Richard Brittain should not have accessed this material. Having done so, he should not have disclosed it indiscriminately - or, possibly, at all.

David O'Donnell wrote:I am starting to understand the PM I got from Richard Priest now.

IMO it's not hard to understand - I merely asked you what your issue with me was.If you don't like me that is your right and I respect that. I'm just interested to know what it is about me that you have a problem with, because if it's a problem for you it may be a problem for other people too, and it's only by knowing what it is that I can do anything about it.