Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure moderators give a viewpoint do they?


But loving your work, just enough smatering of truth in your strawmen to be convincing, just enough earnestness in your holier-than-thou schtick to be plausible, and a little flourish of flounce.


One would almost think you were practiced at provoking a reaction.


Where was that bridge building school you went to you say ;)

Otta Wrote:

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

> I'm confused. We're you having a go at EP or

> Steveo?

>

> Didn't EP post that at Sue's request? I think EP

> was pretty much on the line or maybe a bit over

> it, but context is everything, and the Macann

> thread was pretty ghoulish.



Yes EP did post it here at my request.


If he removed it, then I think he should repost it so that everybody can see it and make up their own minds. If a mod removed it, then it would seem that they also consider it offensive.


"Context is everything"? Personally I cannot see a context which would reduce the offensiveness of that particular post, but perhaps you could explain.


"The McCann thread was pretty ghoulish"?


I posted factual information about an ongoing case in which I had a long-term interest.


I was then attacked on a personal level by a number of people who apparently had not even bothered to check whether what I posted was true (as evidenced by police files in the public domain rather than the rubbish printed in the mainstream media).


Let's see what the outcome of the Scotland Yard/Portuguese investigation is, shall we? I have said that I don't intend to post about the case again on here until such time as (hopefully) somebody/some people are prosecuted, and I am sticking to my word.


No idea if it was a clique involved in the attacks on me, but it wasn't very nice and it included several prominent forum members.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> .

>

> dotted by request.

>

> Sue an apology of sorts was offered, though i

> still don't think it remotely offensive if you

> read it in context.

>

> transcript available on request.




Who requested you to dot it? Not me.


I don't recall "an apology of sorts" being offered. Why "of sorts"? There should have been a full and proper apology if you felt that one was necessary, though if you didn't think it "remotely offensive" then I don't know why you did.


Frankly, if you don't find something like that remotely offensive, I find it quite worrying.

So... That original thread from which el pibe quoted.


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,587735,page=1


His comments which several people think crossed a line come 4 or 5 pages in


But if you read that far and think HIS comments are the worrying aspect of that thread...


PS 4+ years later and despite sue furnishing the world with her evidence, still no child.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> So... That original thread from which el pibe

> quoted.

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,587735,page=1

>

> His comments which several people think crossed a

> line come 4 or 5 pages in

>

> But if you read that far and think HIS comments

> are the worrying aspect of that thread...

>

> PS 4+ years later and despite sue furnishing the

> world with her evidence, still no child.



It's not "my" evidence. It's evidence from the original police investigation.


And so it continues.


ETA: Which is why I won't discuss this case further on here.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Is that McCann forum still going sue?

>

> Do you still spend hours on it? Or even visit for

> a peek?



I rest my case. I think you're rather proving a point.


But by all means use this thread to attack me further. I'm off it.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Sorry. What case is that?

>

> You say you won't discuss it on here so i am

> politely asking if you keep abreast or even

> discuss it anywhere.



The case I'm resting is that certain forum posters, including evidently yourself, like to goad people.


"Politely asking" - yeh, really relevant question, isn't it, after I've just said I won't continue to discuss the McCann case on here.


Or maybe you missed that bit.


I'm not looking at this thread again, so feel free to continue to goad.


And I'm sure that mods will be able to tell if I have looked, so - I shall keep my word.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> You see. I ask simple questions. No name calling.

> No attacking.

>

> But the accusations come - "attack me further"

>

>

> You asked for El pibe to repost his comments and I

> linked to the original thread. How have I

> attacked you?



This post crossed with mine.


I'll let somebody else answer. I'm sure they will.


Goading can be quite subtle, can't it, or maybe your ideas are akin to El Pibe's on what is and is not remotely offensive.


I'm off. Although I see somebody else has posted, but I'm not going to read that one.

The trouble with a thread like this is it can go off at tangents and confuse everyone else. I know this thread is slightly indulgent for the long term regulars to let off steam about past events, but it would be nice if some more recent members could join in and let us know how they feel on the forum and whether a clique has ever felt apparent to them?


Louisa.

Re: The Truth of the Lie - the McCann case

Posted by Keef 22 December, 2010 21:36


Okay. sue, you're like a dog with a rubber bone here, you'll get nothing from it. And DJ, as usual, you're trying to show off your debating skills here, but you're just repeating your self. Let it go everyone.



That Keef bloke was pretty wise and stuff. Plus he called MockneyPiers (whoever that was) a drama queen. Haha.

I just read the link to the thread. That is a truly awful thread and Sue, you should be ashamed of it, not defiantly crying foul. The post from El Pibe is not the thing that is the problem there imo. I don't know if you were having a bad day at the time but that is just the worst example of 'dog with a bone' I've seen on a forum, over an issue that is extremely sensitive.


And if you have got yourself into scrapes like that, the worst thing you can do is drag them up. It will only drive you round the bend and probably everyone else too. Let it go.

Blah blah I don't think Sue has dragged the thread up but somebody else who seemed intent on it. Extremely sensitive threads have been dragged up on the forum since it began.


I'm sure there will be many more in 4 plus years time that the EDF (if it's still going) will be playing host to and everybody will be looking back on!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...