Definitely.

Mmmm.....musings of a tired mind in the wee small hours.

I wonder what the effect will be on this thread next year. If there is the same feeling swinging this way and that about the Clifton's?

However. Hold the front page. Things may just be different next year.
Karen is talking of starting a family and Jo Jo seems to be moving more toward treading the boards.

So, I ask myself again, will the feelings go back and forth and up and down about a Clifton, singular?
😂

Let's play a game where people can express an opinion clearly without relying on an emoticon (to try and justify their rudeness retrospectively).

Five syllables. Anachronistic. There are just some things in life that do not belong together. Milk in peppermint tea, custard on chips, porridge on roast chicken, salt on cornflakes. There is just something plainly wrong here. When I look at Kevin and Karen, I just think, that is just not right.

Meg

My post was not directed at one specific poster. As ML has written it was a collective effort and has had its effect upon her. Ironically the movement in the thread against her reminds me of the movement against the Cliftons. It's an intellectual curiosity that some people are ripe for criticism, the Cliftons or ML, but others who exhibit the same qualities pass unremarked ...

Which could be Kevin. He could be a househusband and Karen could be the sole Clifton on the show!

Fans of Strictly can like or dislike whoever they want. It's up to them, not you. It is utterly pointless to finger wag at anyone who doesn't like what you like.

Forums can get nasty, and it's because people are anonymous and not posting under their own name. They can unleash the very worst of themselves without the neighbours sniggering at them. They can have an alter ego.

I am constantly amused, surprised and appalled that people get so het up when their favourites are 'disliked'. Since when do you get to dictate who the public like or dislike? Who are you? The Lurve Police?

If you hate the posts stop reading them. Just step away. It's that easy.

Get over it

I am sorry I missed last night when the discussion was around Moany

To quote her " trying to suggest a third party causes you to post critical, derogatory or abusive things........ Is probably one of the most remarkable negations of personal responsibility I have ever read. "

As it is remarkable for the one causing offense to be the one receiving the apology

I am off again and won't return to this so no point in posting a response where no doubt everyone else is responsible for her " error of judgement"

Lord knows we all make them, however most people have the grace to apologise, not turn it round so they are the victim and are being apologised to.

Oh no doubt I have my ranty head on, perhaps it's the one that doesn't appreciate non jokes that cause offense to other posters.

ETA Damn I hadn't realised I was posting just after Sofakat, but what she says too!

Really Sofs we ought to plan these things 😀. Now THAT is a joke as no doubt people will think we did.

If a number of people all think a post is a bit rude/an unfunny 'joke' are they supposed to count how many other people have posted to say that before they post, to avoid creating a 'movement' against someone? If a number of people want to post about why they don't like the Cliftons on a thread titled 'why are the Cliftons unpopular?' I don't find it that curious and if I liked the Cliftons I probably just wouldn't read the thread.

No doubt! But it was just down to timing and exasperation!

I see you have conveniently ignored the fact that I have apologised for the inadvertent offense caused by my comment but you apparently can't resist continuing to stick the boot in anyway.

I would have thought that the words "I'm genuinely sorry that the post which caused the upset, apparently did so. That was not my intention" were very clearly an apology.

I have free will and I do take responsibility for what I post and do not blame others for it. Your refusal to ignore my apology does not mean that I did not make it but rather it appears you could not resist coming back to take another swipe at me when it looked like others were now taking a more measured and conciliatory approach.

Carry on picking on me if it really does give you pleasure but I will continue to speak out against any further examples of this apparent pack mentality which arise.

As I said before, perhaps it's now become time to let it go.

Had a bit of a think about this and came up with a couple who actually DO resemble Barbie and Ken.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bl...%25252F%25252F


https://www.alza.co.uk/mattel-barbie...FRAW0wods0QC9w

I think Kevin attracts more snigger and snide than any other pro ever in SCD history and therefore will also attract more defence when probably he isn't even a personal favourite.

You are right that everyone is entitled to an opinion and they may air it as vociferously as they wish (within the T&C's of course) and get called out on it either way. So no dictating, just opinions.

I'm sorry but no one is more Ken than AJ. I rest my case

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....12eHQpLliL.jpg

Nope. Plenty of dictating, attacking, deriding and angst aimed those who do not agree and fall into line do not an opinion make. They've even been called out for conspiracy. It's laughable.

Perhaps some do not know the difference, and their fury at someone daring not to adore the source of their obsession blinds them to normal human interaction.

Hence the angst and the hand wringing - and the denial.

He's a sort of Justin Beiber Ken, that one

Most of them are portrayed as a touch more 'macho' I think. In a camp way.

Or some of the reasons given have holes in them big enough to drive a tractor through.

I've seen that sort of behaviour but in more cases than not it was about celebs, particularly Jay.

Why do you assume that someone who questions the validity of some of the criticism aimed at the Cliftons must be "obsessed" or that they "adore" them?

I'm neither obsessed by any of them, not do I adore any of them but I think that challenging some of the rather more extreme or unfair criticisms which are made, is still perfectly valid.

It's possible to be fairly neutral about them but still OK to challenge opinions which sit at at either end of the Bell Curve.

Uh, I was the person whose post invited such invective from Moany (great name) . Whether she intended it or not, perhaps she ought to reflect on how she posts in future. (FFIW I think she did mean it as an insult and then rowed back on it when she realised the flack she was getting. Just my opinion, but I was the one the post was aimed at.) If anyone comes across as angry in this thread, she does. She hasn't actually engaged with the points I made in my post, just posted more defences of her post and why we have no sense of humour because we didn't "get it."

I don't post that much on DS, but I do read it. I'm not a youngster and whilst I found Moany's post quite offensive, I am well able to smile at the tone of it and not take it to heart. It's a post on the internet, that is all.

However not everyone is as tough as this old boot. We all know that the world of social media is becoming increasingly nasty and vitriolic. We all also know that there is evidence that such behaviour is spilling over into the real world, which is becoming a deeply scary place.

Now, I am not suggesting that an online forum about the glitter that is Strictly is going to lead to hate crimes, but I am suggesting that we can all contribute to a better atmosphere online by trying to be nicer to each other, disagreeing with each other respectfully and always, always remembering that we can actually hurt each other with words.

That includes me, so I try (and don't always succeed) to mind what I say. But I do try to own my mistakes when I make them, because that's how I learn. And even this old boot is still learning. One thing this thread has done for me is think about Kevin Clifden and maybe that all of those remarks about his personal appearance etc are quite hurtful. I don't think I have engaged in any of that, but I now have a firm purpose of ammendment (as we lapsed Catholics say!) not to do so. Still doesn't mean I don't find him deeply irritating

Sorry to take up the thread's time like this but I just see so much nastiness out there and online which I think it often happens by accident at the start and then gets worse.. Then before you know it the worst in all of us appears.

Thank you for posting this Aedin.

I can't do much more than try to reassure you that it was genuinely not my intention to upset or annoy you. I was simply bemused at what came across to me - rightly or wrongly - as quite a lot of "ire" in your post. As I have said, I do take responsibility for what I post online and on that basis, my apology was - and is - unreserved.

However, I made that apology voluntarily and not because I came under any pressure from anyone else to do so. I don't set out to cause distress to anyone - and certainly not over something like this. It was an error of judgment on my part and not intended to be cruel or nasty. I can't do much more than reiterate that, because it is the truth.

You make some excellent points in this post and I hope that others, like me, will try to bear them in mind when posting in future.

Really? And how far will you go? You are not within your rights to challenge anyone's opinion or to decide what is 'extreme' and what isn't. Commenting is fine.

If they go too far, report them. If you challenge them it does help to do with with some humour perhaps.

Brave post. I salute you. And you are one of the reasons why I posted my views on extreme over reactions from fans on forums.

I think sometimes the anonymity that a forums gives people makes them lose all sense of just how rabid they can become with what they see as a defence of their favourites.

It's a place to unleash all kind of other issues and ire which is not appropriate or rational and have nothing whatever to do with people having fun on a forum.

Social media is not harmless. Keep rising above it.

Do you perhaps mean incongruous? That reminds me - I once tried a Heston Blumenthal super-duper prawn cocktail from Waitrose. The sauce turned out to contain vanilla. If you imagine prawn custard - it was disgusting. Even after rinsing off the sauce under the tap, the prawns were inedible.

I have as much right as anyone else does on this forum. We are all equal, are we not?

If nobody has the "rights to challenge anyone's opinion" then why are you here challenging mine? Or is it just specifically me that you think should not have that right?

You see. Either we all have the same rights or we all have none.