But not her dancing, so in the Strictly Come Dancing forum, praise for her dancing (there's some of those missing words you mentioned!) could be seen as deliberately provocative.

Very good! But you could have saved yourself some typing there by using the word this.
Praising Ann Widdecombe for her participation in Strictly includes many different elements. She was entertaining, amusing and popular and I see nothing remotely provocative about praising her.

Others may have a different view but they'd have to substantiate it to convince me.

Thing is, there is a proper place for praising a celebrity and the main forum is not it!

This is why the WUM's drive the rest of us barmy.

Blimey - I hope I'm not going to be classed as a WUM but I didn't mind Ann Widdecombe at all - not to win, of course. She was amusing to watch and she must have known how hopeless she was but she took it all in good part. I see contestants like that as 'cannon fodder' to allow the others time to progress. It also showed she was quite capable of laughing at herself, a trait not too many MPs share!

No it's clear you are not a WUM. WUMS are those who on purpose say things that you feel instinctively forced and false, and the only reasons they wrote that was to induce emotions from others. Attention seeking, that's all the do.

The rolling eyes don't help at all in explaining your point, whatever it is. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't discuss Ann Widdecombe's participation in Strictly, on the Strictly forum? Surely not! If you are, I might begin to wonder if you are trying to wind us up. Perish the thought of such a thing as a "wind-up merchant" on this thread!

Yes, she was funny, fiesty and laughed at herself along with the rest of us. She obviously enjoyed it enormously and had the time of her life.

Here The Strictly Come Dancing Appreciation part of the forum. AKA The Attic and where the luvvies live

Well, at the risk of running a WUMming charge, it depends on how you want to discuss any celebs participation in Strictly, not just Ann Widdecombe.

Any discussion which is just for general appreciation usually finds itself put in the lift and taken to the penthouse suite of appreciation.

Any discussion which is for general comment and pro/con for/against appreciation/non appreciation is left to take its chances in the rough and tumble of the ground floor.

Any thread which is an appreciation thread in the main forum used by on the whole one person can get a bit ho-hummish.

Aha! I see now what you mean by the main forum. I didn't realise there is another part of the forum. I wouldn't want to go in there. I just participate in general discussion.

Oh well mindyann looks like we have another one for the list

Fair enough. Good post.
It still doesn't make a thread praising a celeb, necessarily a wind-up thread. It might just be in the wrong place and anyone might start such a thread without realising that.

It worked!

In my view the real WUMS are not those who charge into a discussion with a diametrically opposite point of view, eccentric/annoying/well-meaning/righteous as you are/may be/are not, as long as you discuss your point.
At least you are swimming in the same piranha tank of discussion.

For me the WUMs are those who deliberately start multiple new threads (often with bad spelling) with long sentences to draw attention to unpopular/passé/outvoted celeb in order to draw attention to themselves.

I refuse to give publicity by quoting the names of these posters - we all know who they are.

When you come back at them directly inside their threads with diametrically opposing views, you do, of course, become a WUM yourself, due to be excommunicated or executated by lethal injection with whatever they have in their syringes - mostly liquid bubblegum.

I just wish they'd go away.

There is a certain poster at the moment who starts many threads in support of various celebs. After suggestions that these threads are better suited to the appreciation sub-forum, one thread was moved. The poster then abandoned the thread, only to start a new one in the main forum. The thread just wasn't getting enough attention in the sub-forum...

Of course you are right in that some people just don't know or realise about the sub-forum. But some do.

Thanks always simple when someone explains

How about she couldn't be bothered to do the latin dances properly as she found it them too provative - why go on the show if you're not prepared to enter into the spirit of it. Oh I forgot publicity and cash!!!

I don't understand how anyone found her entertaining beyond the third round the joke wore thin pretty quickly IMO. You of course may differ but I will never understand or argee with you.

I don't tend to notice any pattern in who starts threads, maybe because I don't spend a lot of time on this forum.Usually I don't even think about the Appreciation threads either. I rarely go into one of those.

Oulandy, my guess is that you have a life, possibly a busy one, and I commend you for that.

I've spent far too much time on this forum today instead of working my butt off, so I need someone with a bucket of cold water to wake me up to reality.

Your way is drier.

I'm beginning to realise that DS is a whole lot more politically complicated than I had realised. Here's me thinking it's a fun discussion shop where you can dip in and out and join in etc. I don't make a mental note of other posters particularly although here and there I may remember one that I seem to get on with ok, or who thinks similarly to me. I really have no idea, Dorabella, who the WUMs are that you have mentioned. A WUM for me is somebody who makes a naff comment in order to annoy me .. wind me up as it were.

Exactly. That's why there's an Ignore option in place. Use it and then there's no problem. It's not up to anyone other than the Admins and Moderators of this forum to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to post.


Traditionally a troll (or WUM as used here) is someone who makes a deliberately provocative statement with the sole intention of making people react in a specific and argument inducing manner.

Having a different opinion than another poster doesn't automatically make them a troll or a WUM. The origins of the use of "troll" comes from "troller" (Old French for hunt) and arose on the very first bulletin board newsgroup systems in the original days of the internet when posters would deliberately hunt through the BBs to find people to wind up.

It usually came from newbies (people new to the newsgroup) posting a topic which had been widely discussed on repeated occasions in the past and then being "trolled" for it by older NG members.

Flaming is also used to describe people who post in a provocative manner and that's more often associated with gaming websites and forums than with sites like Digital Spy. Most forums have software in place to allow people to report and block proper trolls rather than simply people who other posters don't agree with

But she was popular - not just with me. But one thing I like about her is that she is fiesty, witty and sharp and that I find entertaining. There have been others who participated in Strictly and were poor dancers but also popular.

The point I am trying to make in this thread is that there is a topic for discussion of those people without it being trolling. She and those others have always been discussed in the forum. If we just treated it as a dance competition, then I would want to get rid of most of the celeb dancers. Sometimes I do think I would prefer a proper dancing programme. But that's not what Strictly is, or not solely.

You may burst a blood vessel when I confess that I also like Russell Grant! Again, it's his spirit and personality, I like. He is fun and I enjoy seeing him dancing and cavorting about.

So have I! It's been one of those days - Monday, Monday - and I'm afraid I've made a very slow start to the working week.

This thread has been closed as it is not constructive.