Whistleblowing

[*Bob*]

It's a fine line, Hal.. trying to balance the flavour of your original point with a dash of personal rivalry and couple of shakes of light goading.

I submit that you have overcooked your goose on this one.

[*Bob*]

Now if you will excuse me - I have to make Jenny's left tit a cup of tea.

[HAL9000]

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.

[mockney piers]

Ooh, finally revealing your true colours HAL, nasty piece of work. I think the only word that can describe the smearing and misrepresentation, leaving alone the google stalking and outing, is 'vile' frankly.

If I were you I'd quietly retreat to lick your wounds rather than keep digging.

[HAL9000]

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.

[mockney piers]

dig dig dig

[*Bob*]

From 'awaiting to grasp the hand of friendship' (seems like only yesterday.. oh.. it was!) to 'dishing-out poetic justice'.. all in the blink of an eye.

Most people didn't see the thread, so I expect can't really comment. I saw it, but have no particularly strong opinions regarding either receiving unwanted and dubious spam.. or dubious spammers receiving 'the bird', as it were.

Anyway, I'm sure most people with half a brain can see this for what it is: nothing to do with a pusher of local money-off coupons receiving a serious business knock.. and everything to do with a cockswinging contest between two established adversaries.

You'll miss him when he's gone, you know. You'll have no-one to play with.

[Smeltz]

Mother always said "two wrongs don't make a right"

[HAL9000]

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..

[ruffers]

Shame it seems to have become a matter of who gets the last word.

[Narnia]

Whistleblowing............full time.

[*Bob*]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

I am sure that he

> is a really nice guy in real life

Alas, from what I have heard, this is not the case. He has an eye patch and a thin, cruel nose. He also smells strongly of cabbage leaves which are 'on the turn' - and the tone of his speech can only be described as akin to that of a constipated parrot.

[Narnia]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> Ooh, finally revealing your true colours HAL,

> nasty piece of work. I think the only word that

> can describe the smearing and misrepresentation,

> leaving alone the google stalking and outing, is

> 'vile' frankly.

> If I were you I'd quietly retreat to lick your

> wounds rather than keep digging.

What gives you the right to call someone a 'nasty piece of work' MP? Are you qualified to do so? HAL appears to me to defend his point of view with his intellect whereas you seem to be out for revenge. Tell me I'm wrong.

[mockney piers]

How can it be revenge, I didn't engineer this situation, those posts or that behaviour.

I believe the tern is schadenfreude.

If people want to defend it then perhaps the forum has indeed got what and who it deserves.

[Michael Palaeologus]

A revengers tragedy in the making.

[Smeltz]

for whom though? It would seem many here have grumbles of one kind or another against someone. I can feel the love here!

[Narnia]

Oh dear what can the matter be? I think someone used to sing that to me when I was young but not sure. I shouldn't have got involved in this. I don't remember the entire arguement as I can't be bothered to reread what I've read already. All I will add is that I find it distasteful that people should use such strong language referring to another person who puts their arguement in a reasonable way. There have been pratts on here who have been banned for far worse but who have not received the sort of condemnation HAL has received here. By the way what is the origin of the word 'pratt'?

[Fuschia]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

>

it was

> pure chance that she saw the thread and responded

>

Actually, I contacted her via FB as I said in MY posts in that thread and told her there was concern on the forum

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

It's rude, Narnia, wash your mouth out.

[HAL9000]

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?

[KoolBananas]

Now now don't be scaring the Facebookers. I think you'll find such actions on everyday surfing. It's the way of life these days HAL surely you of all people know that!

[HAL9000]

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?

[KoolBananas]

That view hardly justifies your behaviour.

As has been pointed out two wrongs certainly do not make a right.

[HAL9000]

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.

[RosieH]

Taste of his own medicine?

Hardly. If your acolytes don't have the wit to see through your bullshit more fool them, but don't take the rest of us for the same kind of idiots.