Whistleblowing

[Ladymuck]

> RosieH Wrote:

----------------

> ...including on another forum and naming people by

> their initial, which if not to cause illwill

> towards that person is for what exactly? People in

> glass houses...

Keef Wrote:

----------------

WORD!

I had actually let RosieH's comment pass (see earlier). However, given your latest post Keef, regrettably I now feel compelled to respond.

*long weary sigh, coupled with a hint of sadness"

Presumably you are both referring to this? from the Nunhead Forum?

mikecg wrote:

----------------

> That poster had it in for me the

> minute I arrived on the site...

Me (under a different username):

--------------------------------

mikecg, sorry I have just walked into this...I am concerned as what you have said here has rung some very loud bells. Was the...shall we say...ringleader...who was responsible for the behaviour described by you a female member of the EDF with a poster name beginning with "a". I apologise in advance if I am wrong, but I too have suffered my share of...I'm not too sure what to call it...but it was far from pleasant. I was merely wondering if we were talking about the same person. Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.

So, to answer your question - no, my post was not intended "to cause illwill towards that person". I was concerned that the humiliation to which I had been subjected might also have been inflicted upon another user, and I wished to establish (from that other user) whether "we were talking about the same person". My apologies if my post was unclear.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I think I am getting this thread now. This is the thread where people can say what they want to say but dont want to say it in the parts of the Forum that people actually read.

Carry on, all this venting of spleen is quite diverting.

[Smeltz]

Ludymuck one does presume there is life outside of the forum?

If you dont get on with someone on here and in person (met from here) surely we're all grown up enough to let it be?

It's disheartening to think it all comes to be about one person.

Sorry it is the way I'm reading it. I do apologise if I'm wrong.

[Ladymuck]

Ah tres drole Monsieur Pallywotsitoos! Oui, tres tres drole.

*laughs, despite herself*

[RosieH]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > RosieH Wrote:

> ----------------

> > ...including on another forum and naming people

> by

> > their initial, which if not to cause illwill

> > towards that person is for what exactly? People

> in

> > glass houses...

>

> Keef Wrote:

> ----------------

> WORD!

>

>

> I had actually let RosieH's comment pass (see

> earlier). However, given your latest post Keef,

> regrettably I now feel compelled to respond.

>

> *long weary sigh, coupled with a hint of sadness"

>

> Presumably you are both referring to this? from

> the Nunhead Forum?

>

> mikecg wrote:

> ----------------

> > That poster had it in for me the

> > minute I arrived on the site...

>

> Me (under a different username):

> --------------------------------

> mikecg, sorry I have just walked into this...I am

> concerned as what you have said here has rung some

> very loud bells. Was the...shall we

> say...ringleader...who was responsible for the

> behaviour described by you a female member of the

> EDF with a poster name beginning with "a". I

> apologise in advance if I am wrong, but I too have

> suffered my share of...I'm not too sure what to

> call it...but it was far from pleasant. I was

> merely wondering if we were talking about the same

> person. Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.

>

>

> So, to answer your question - no, my post was not

> intended "to cause illwill towards that person".

> I was concerned that the humiliation to which I

> had been subjected might also have been inflicted

> upon another user, and I wished to establish (from

> that other user) whether "we were talking about

> the same person". My apologies if my post was

> unclear.

The humiliation? No, I can't have this. You have banged on and on and on about this for 6 months, *giggling* about it on various threads - giggling about your own humiliation? Man, you must have been really upset I guess. And now conjuring up some new imaginary slight at the Clockhouse. I was there and I know there was none.

I was also there 6 months ago when all this first started and you were really fucking rude to me, but I'm not on here bitching and whining about it 6 months later. So for the love of all that is holy, will you PLEASE just get a grip and let this one go?

[ruffers]

Is Beadle going to jump out at some point?

[*Bob*]

If he does, it'll be his best prank to date.

[Ladymuck]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And now conjuring up

> some new imaginary slight at the Clockhouse. I

> was there and I know there was none.

I beg to differ.

> I was also there 6 months ago when all this first

> started and you were really @#$%& rude to me.

Again, untrue - we never spoke.

[brum]

RosieH you are as responsible as anyone for raking up all this unpleasantness so it's a bit rich telling LM to 'let it go'! The best way to let go is to simply stop posting on this thread, and I think that goes for everyone. Please let this thread die.

[Keef]

Sorry to not let it die, but that is unfair, it was LM who brought up something from ages ago, just because BN5 came on here and posted.

I am not making this personal, I don't know LM, and I haven't seen the other lady in question for the best part of a year, I'm certainly not part of some gang who is bullying. I just thought that LM was wrong dragging up the whole sorry affair. Who gives a flying f**k if you've not made up (what is this, the playground), it's a big world, and the other poster hardly ever posts anymore (which is a damned shame), so just live your life and forget it. When I read that on the Nunhead forum, I thought it was a bit out of order to be honest.

I am sur the other poster wishes she'd never ever posted anything about being "snubbed", but she did, because she felt she had been. I don't think you helped yourself in the whole sorry affair to be honest, you could have acted with a lot more dignity, and you could have refrained from bringing it up again and again ever since. If anything, it reduces any sympathy I felt for your position in the whole mess.

Anyway, this thread has rather gone off topic.

[KalamityKel]

wot keef said.

Disappointing behaviour all round

:-(

[brum]

Yes Keef and although I disagree with your take on it, I do think it was a sorry affair and is now clearly off topic. What was the topic, by the way? It's not about rounding on Hal is it? If it was then my original call to let this thread die still stands. Though if it was about trying to persuade Hugenot to stay, then hurrah! May it continue till he changes his mind!

[legalbeagle]

So no one wants my free prosecco then?

[brum]

Me! Me! Me!

[*Bob*]

Does the prosecco come with one last forlorn look at Jenny Agutter's norks - before floating up towards certain death as the climax to the danse macabre - in a futuristic world where everyone must die when they reach thirty?

If not - you can count myself and Mockney out.

[HAL9000]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So no one wants my free prosecco then?

I have tried on a few occasions to 'make up' - alas to no avail. I wouldn't hesitate to grasp the hand of friendship if it were offered - I don't have any issues with him.

I don't understand what his issues are with me - the ravings in his post above sound like paranoid delusions: I can't make sense of them.

For the record, his allegations about me are either factually inaccurate or just plain wrong - I refute them all.

[legalbeagle]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does the prosecco come with one last forlorn look

> at Jenny Agutter's norks

Sorry *Bob* did I not mention? Free Prosecco this month at G&B comes with whatever pair of celebrity norks one cares to choose. If Jenny Agutter's norks you would like, then Jenny Agutter's norks you shall have.

Shall I deliver to your home or would you like to get your bubbly and jubblies from the shop?

[*Bob*]

Do you have the 1974 vintage of Agutter?

I'll collect and take home I think. They charge a small fortune on norkage in there.

[brum]

If the word 'norkage' doesn't exist, it should. Classic *Bob* (tu)

[legalbeagle]

That's a very good vintage, so I'm not sure we have it on the shelves but I'll take a look. I'm reasonably confident we've kept her in the cellar for a special occasion. If I find her I'll pop her behind the counter with the bubbly. Don't forget at that age she'll deteriorate in day light and heat very quickly once opened, so when you get her home, do get on with it.

[brum]

How far back do your celebrity norks go, LB? I admit to fancying a bit of Gina Lolobrigida tonight.

[legalbeagle]

Ah. Well I'm afraid you'll have to get in the queue for those. They were last seen heading out the door with a rich banker, a fur coat and a bottle of Crystal. Not sure they get out of bed for Prosecco and a fireman, but I'll ask.........

[*Bob*]

Much appreciated.

Actually, you'd better split the norks and send Mockney one.. it's only fair. (If one is slightly larger than the other, make sure I get the bigger one though, please).

[brum]

It's not about getting out of bed, surely! Besides, Gina's norks might fancy a bit o ruff fireman, just for a nice change...

[legalbeagle]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Much appreciated.

>

> Actually, you'd better split the norks and send

> Mockney one.. it's only fair. (If one is slightly

> larger than the other, make sure I get the bigger

> one though, please).

Are you sure? A last glance at a Jenny's nork (singular) just doesn't seem right to me?

I guess the customer is always right tho. I'll post the left one to Mockney then. It's a bit smaller, but on the plus side, the reduction in weight makes it slightly perkier.

Swings and roundabouts, as it were.