Um, I didn't assert that. In fact, I said the opposite. Tern's selective quoting of me inadvertently gives a misleading impression, but if you read my original post you'll see my actual position.

Ah, having reread, I see it was another example of you selecctive quoting upon which I based my assertion...you had missed out the bit where Brangdon stated they didn't believe herd-mentality to be the case here (so I offer up my apologies to Brangdon). You, however, do agree with there being group-thinking at play here, don't you? You said so, expressly.

You may be simply refering to the TA candidates in that assertion but in doing so you are implying, by the very nature of undermining those who don't support Lorraine in their argument that she must have patent faults because many of the fired candidates have stated so, that FMs are - if not guilty of herd-mentality - certainly falling prey to the TA candidates fallacious group-think.

So in amongst all the bluster and confusion (being charitable - on both parts). You believe:

* that the fired candidates who have made scathing remarks re: Lorraine have fallen into some sort of negative group-think not based on fact and observation of Lorraine throughout the tasks and time in the penthouse but, through some sort of groundless-thought-creating-demon?

* that the FMs who use the argument that many candidates have slated Lorraine and her supposed 'instinct' as 'proof' that she is a poor candidate for TA, are patently wrong/their argument is grossly undermined by the mere 'fact' that their 'proof' is based upon some false group-think?

* no group-thinking, as such, is taking place amongst FMs - phew (just some have been daft enough to fall for the group-thinking of the former candidates)...because, although I haven't done a head-count as you clearly have, as many support Lorraine as those who have fallen for the group-think approach and denigrate her 'skills'.

No more confusion. Yay.

In this theory of the group-think is their room for independant thought? Were a candidate to say something positive about Lorraine, would that be an indication that they had escaped the dreaded group-think...so glad it's not actually happening on the forum, it sounds dreadful to be so stripped of free thought.

My above took so long to post (interruptions)...you'll see I've allowed for and apologized due to the misunderstanding over selective quotes by Tern.

Sorry, again - personally

No problem. It's easy to see how it happened. (And I don't think Tern was intending to mislead either.)

The selective quoting you talk about is only a problem because you are desperately trying to prosecute an argument that I said something that I didn't.

I'm not going to answer this point by point because it just tendentious flim-flam. Back when I made the post that first confused you it was perfectly clear that I was refering to the TA candidates.

What you are doing above is basically setting up a giant straw man argument.

The problem with your child-like and simplistic analysis is that 'group think' is not a toggle; it's not black and white.

I see evidence that there is an element of group think in the attitude of the candidates. That does not imply a tenth of what you then try to make it imply.

Specifically I was talking about behaviours in the house and on tasks. What ex-candidates said was neither here nor there. It cannot affect the tasks. You merely brought it in to try a gain credance for your absurd position that a comment I made about TA candidates and a further, similar, instance of a person suffering as a result of group-think seeded by one particular individual are an attack on forum members.

You seem to be on some quixotic crusade although what you are trying to achieve is a matter for bemused speculation.

My 'selective quoting' was simply following netiquette in quoting exactly what was necessary of your post to provide context for what I wanted to say.

I had no idea that I was then going to be stalked by someone trying to insist I meant something in no way related to what I actually said, nor what I intended to say.

What you said reminded me again of an incident very similar to what I see in with the TA candidates whereby a perfectly normal and competant employee was treated as if they were more of a hinderance than a help. It wasn't dramatic but it was obvious and it was obvious that it was affecting the quality of work by everyone involved.

Terribly dense.

i still stand by the fact that Lorraine Tighe is a legend

Me too Jacob.

I turned to this thread hoping to see some comment on her interview performance; sadly at this time of night I lack the concentration to read and analyse the overly long posts.

Lorraine has her flaws - but taking into account her time away from the workplace and the progress she has made since then, I think she would be an asset to any business.

I hope she does well in the future.

I really think you've nailed it there, that makes sense to me ... I'm thinking maybe Abraxus? -

"Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word which is life and death at the same time. Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and evil, light and darkness in the same word and in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible." - from The Seven Sermons to The Dead, Carl Jung