HAL9000

I see - kinda makes sense, I guess. Thank you.

Hmmm - looks like LM's hubby has set her browser's Content Advisor to safe mode.

bonniebird - why did you feel so compelled to tell the park manager about this? And what did you expect him to do about it? And why? Forgive me if I've missed the point here.

Yes, credit where it's due - Milfwall is both brilliant and hilarious. If they don't choose it, I'll eat Brendan's hat.

One has to be cautious when relaying second hand accounts - I once posted about an accident repeating what I was told by supposed eyewitnesses: that the victims' legs had been cut off - it turned out that the rescue services had merely cut her legs free from the mangled wreckage of a bicycle.

I am not being unsympathetic either, but commercial sponsorship notwithstanding, ?37.50 x 80 members = ?3,000.00. Simples!

Apparently, spill capture was suspended yesterday because lightning set fire to the oil tanker - looks like even the gods have shorted BP's stock!

I'm wondering how much of the spill BP claims to have captured is actually water/seawater and whether the volume of captured oil has been independently verified? According to the live video feed a huge plume of oil is still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. By my reckoning, the plume looks as big as it did before.

Thanks to Admin and the Team I've almost beaten an addiction to beheading videos - Cheers guys and gals!

Dulwich Dribblers

Cerumen Main Entry: ce?ru?men Pronunciation: \sə-ˈr?-mən\ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, irregular from Latin cera wax; akin to Greek k?ros wax Date: 1741 : earwax ? ce?ru?mi?nous \-mə-nəs\ adjective cerumen. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cerumen Word refered to by ianr in thread: "Re: 32" Sony Bravia Brand New in box!" now "." (For Sale...)

I suppose it depends on which one were you talking out of on this occasion? (I'm joking, of course :)

Call to regulate artificial life

Let me make it clear that I do not have any personal issues with the real people who post as Mockney or Huguenot, or anyone else, for that matter. It's only an internet forum ? I don?t take anything on here too seriously. I'm sure most of you are aware that flame wars and confrontations have a tendency to escalate and acquire a life of their own on internet forums in general. This has happened on this thread, in my view. If some of us had more brains than balls, I don't think this thread would have degenerated into the unpleasant quagmire it has become. I accept my fair share of responsibility in that respect: this isn't how I intended my contribution to end up being perceived. On occasion I have tried to inject some levity into the proceedings that appear to have been misinterpreted as barbs or snide remarks by some - adding fuel to the flames. Anyway, all my previous attempts to 'make up' with Mockney and Huguenot have been rejected. Huguenot chose to leave us with the legacy of a thread containing some fairly malevolent remarks about me that pretty much set the tone for the ensuing discussion. As far as I am concerned, I?ve made my point and the underlying issues have been done to death so I won?t be opening any new fronts or introducing new arguments unless others raise sensible issues that require a reasoned response. Frankly, if clocks could be turned back, I'm fairly sure that every contender would ensure that this thread wasn't here this morning. We can't turn back time, the thread is here - so, any sensible suggestions for a mutually acceptable 'happy ending' on a postcard please

I feel a sense of d?j? vu all over again. If you leave too, whose butt am I going to kick when things get quiet around here?

He's not hiding behind your skirt, is he?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can it be revenge Because you found yourself compelled to fall on your own sword when I criticised you for attempting to trivialise the defamation of a third party by a personal friend of yours, perhaps? > I believe the ter[m] is schadenfreude. What on earth do you have to gloat over? You must be delusional if that?s what you think. Your best friend engineered this entire distasteful incident: he also defamed a third party and chose to fall on his own sword. What is it about you guys - is this some kind of fetish or what? > If people want to defend it then perhaps the forum > has indeed got what and who it deserves. You appear to be defending the indefensible, again. Apart from you, who else has defended Huguenot's defamation of a third party? No one. Of course, no one wants him to leave and a few have criticised me for giving him a taste of his own medicine - that's quite understandable - but nothing I didn't expect or will lose any sleep over: my conscience is clear.

Exactly - so what was all the fuss about? Why would a leading consultant within that industry launch such a ferocious attack on a small-scale, local web marketing outfit?

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, I contacted her via FB That was very fair minded of you - well done. As you are a FaceBook user, may I ask how you feel about having every jot and title of your and your friends' personal data covertly harvested, demographically profiled and then used to present you with targeted advertising while you are tracked all over the world-wide-web with browser cookies?

I would shake his hand if he offered it (fat chance of that, though) - but I'd still kick his butt if he acted like a cunt. I am sure that he is a really nice guy in real life - pity it had to degenerate into this farrago. But it did and since he chose to vent his spleen in my direction as a parting shot - I feel justified in fighting my corner. Despite appearances - it is not a personal issue as far as I am concerned. It's a matter of right and wrong - pure and simple..

What's this: one law for Huguenot and another for me? What you say applies equally - nay, more so, to Huguenot because he acted maliciously whereas I am merely redressing the balance.

I'm not out to win a popularity contest - I'm trying to make a serious point. The opportunity arose to subject Huguenot to the very same treatment he had imposed upon a third party ? I see it as poetic justice. He publicly outed his victim, made serious allegations without prior notice or even an invitation to argue her case on the forum - it was pure chance that she saw the thread and responded - and he failed to observe even the most basic principles of fairness such as conceding the benefit of the doubt or innocence until proven guilty. Bad form, in my view. I'm sure everyone realises that the observations (on the previous page) are framed as the speculative machinations of a plaintiff's Counsel and not intended as a character assassination. So, I've managed to provoke a reaction on behalf of Huguenot - but what I find inexplicable is that no one spoke up on behalf of his victim. No one came to her defence. Many regulars stood by and revelled in what was a very unpleasant episode ? egomania on steroids ? some even jumped at the opportunity to put the boot in: disgraceful behaviour. It is disappointing to see the principles of fairness, equality and justice trampled underfoot by people who should know better. I hope something positive is learnt from this.

I agree that it is difficult to tell exactly who said what in that article. He appears to have been quoted four times although it is not clear - to me at least - what he is actually said to have said. In any event, the selected quotes are intended merely as an overview of his industry, which in retrospect, I should have made clearer. I apologise for any unintentional misattribution. The linked article is the definitive source and is there for all to read. On the issue of misrepresentation: Huguenot attempted to apply emotional pressure on Admin to take a stance on the deleted thread - as an industry insider he would be expected to know FaceBook's policy on suspension yet he cites it as justification for inviting legal action. If Admin had fallen for the deception and an action resulted, the opposition's lawyers would have had a field day with this information. It would have, in my view, pole-axed any defence by introducing arguments such the ethics of using harvesting bots and cross-referenced demographic databases against hapless internet users, and so on. A clever lawyer might develop an argument painting Huguenot's attack on another internet marketer as a ploy to undermine a rival business. The possibilities are many. Furthermore, it could have opened up another can of worms: has Huguenot been harvesting and cross-referencing commercial information from the EDF itself, for example? The Forum's business, residential and family demographics are valuable resources when cross-referenced against other marketing databases (especially now with the new sections). Could that be why Huguenot has tried to stop someone else from muscling in on his territory - have ED forumites been used as guinea pigs for his harvester and cross-referencing bots? RosieH (who provided the essential keywords that expedited my research - thank you) brought up the illegality of this type of marketing in the EU. Note that Huguenot operates from Singapore - a jurisdiction beyond EU and US laws. I don't know if that is significant or not, but it is relevant as part of the overall picture. I would add that one would expect an ethical professional to have disclosed the fact that he was an industry insider when launching a unilateral attack against a rival internet marketing business. So, in conclusion, I submit that introducing this information is perfectly valid given that Huguenot subjected the target of his attentions to much the same treatment: quid pro quo. That?ll do for now.

Whether you like it or not, his occupation is probative to this thread ? a thread he started - Huguenot is a consultant on targeted advert spamming. And by including a link to the original source there is no deception on my part. I'm surprised you don't see the hypocrisy in his attempt to expose someone who was allegedly practicing what he preaches - I guess it takes all sorts. Argumentum ad hominem aside ? care to explain why it isn?t hypocrisy?

I'm grateful to one of the participants of this thread for directing me to a strange coincidence: it seems that Huguenot, in real life, is an internet marketing consultant who makes a living out of training big business in the fine art of spamming FaceBook and Twitter users with targeted advertising... A few interesting quotes from an article in Campaign (some from Huguenot himself): The World: Cashing in on social networking the Asian way (23 October 2009) Social media users can be bought by advertisers for as little as nine pence each. Robin Hicks finds out how marketers benefit. As in the West, traditional advertising is not the most popular way brands are using social networks in Asia. Advertisers are increasingly trying to enter the content stream itself, reaching "influencers" in blogs and friend circles. ... The idea was to attract foreign visitors and encourage guests to promote the hotel as "the perfect blend of East meets West. More extreme methods to get popular quickly are now emerging ... an online marketing company ... sells Facebook friends for 15 cents each (nine pence) to companies interested in a particular demographic or interest group that suits what they sell. ... provided that brands do not spam their "friends" too often with messages and links, a relationship can be built over time. "It's not like buying Google ad clicks, which you have to keep on buying. A Facebook friend or Twitter follower, if treated well, can be marketed to indefinitely at no extra cost." A Twitter follower could be worth ten cents a month in sales, he says, while a Facebook friend is worth a dollar a month. But the good times might not last if the letters to his lawyers continue to arrive. He has already received legal writs from Digg and Twitter, but, after writing back to defend his corner, has heard nothing since. ... proves that the rules are still being written for social network marketing in Asia. "We're not breaking any laws. We're just doing what any other Facebook user would do if he had the knowledge or time," he says. Talk about hypocrisy!