New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Sue, this is off topic. Please start a new thread

> about goose related matters.

Not really - have a look at what Lewis tweeted (his own account, not the SSW one).

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Lewis Schaffer has posted again on Twitter,

> again

> > using my surname and again linking me with The

> > Goose Is Out!

> >

> > Can anybody tell me if there is something I can

> do

> > about this?

> >

> > ETA: This is harassment.

>

> Sue,

>

> I assume this would fall under 'release of private

> information' and you an report him directly to

> Twitter using this page:

> https://support.twitter.com/forms/private_informat

> ion

>

> Alternatively, you can report a single tweet for

> abuse with a link in the tweet itself:

> https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170408#

Thank you Loz. I've reported him to Twitter. He has done this using his Lewis Schaffer twitter account, and has now tweeted my full name three times despite being asked to stop.

Considering he put his full name under every post of his on here, I do not think it is unreasonable for others to use it on here.

And to post my surname on Twitter is just not on.

Sample posts:

@TheGooseIsOut Sue (my surname). Come meet with us at cemetery or meet at @Save_Ivy_House

Is Sue (my surname) the Sue on the East Dulwich Forum? Do you support cutting down the Woods and digging up graves?

Sue (my surname) at the @TheGooseIsOut: Do you support cutting down trees and digging up graves in Nunhead and East Dulwich?

[Newton]

I'm not sure I can think of anything that has got me angrier on the forum than reading this. Let's be absolutely clear: the internet isn't magic. If you're a garbage person on-line, you're a garbage person in real life. And if any of you associate with Lewis during or after this, you're part of the problem. Seriously, if you care more about some trees than an actual real live woman getting harassed you deserve to have children spit in your face on the street. If you want to continue your campaign, fine, but get him out of your group.

Oh and one last thing for women associating with Lewis, don't think that because you're not the target this week you won't be next.

[LauraW]

Woah, where has this accusation of misogyny come from? Lewis gets into conflicts with people and they get into conflicts with him but a Twitter spat with Sue doesn't make him a misogynist. If it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for 4 years.

I'm disappointed now that I know who Sue is that someone in the folk scene would be in favour of turning a green space as wonderful as COC into another waterlogged sterile place to plant graves. The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her identity exposed does suggest that she was using online anonymity as a shield while behaving trollishly on EDF.

[LauraW]

It's a campaign and they've been working hard to make it successful. Do you have a problem with campaigns or are you just particularly keen for this one to not succeed? What's it to you, Sue?

[alice]

I can feel a Spartacus moment coming on.

[edhistory]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> Lewis gets into conflicts with people

Why does he do this?

Can you do anything to help him?

John K

[LauraW]

Rather a lot of people on EDF seem to make a hobby of getting into conflicts. I'm not suggesting Lewis sought them out here. He was posting on this forum for a campaign he is involved in. Other people pick fights when they could leave threads alone. Sad.

[civilservant]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> If it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for

> 4 years.

no, it's not relevant. The man was accused of harassment - and that is exactly what he is doing.

> The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her

> identity exposed does suggest that she was using

> online anonymity as a shield while behaving

> trollishly on EDF.

Sue has never sought anonymity - many of us know who she is and appreciate her contribution to the local community. She, like anyone else on the forum, is entitled to reveal her identity on her own terms. She also has the right to object to silly and vicious messages posted about her on social media or anywhere. It is also very silly to accuse her of trolling.

a general point - whoever is running this campaign has completely subverted their own cause. I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of whatever it is that they are trying to do - it's all drowned out by the shrillness of their voices - and I don't feel i want to even bother to find out. Because all I can hear is the sound of harassment, spite, misinformation and, oh yes, obfuscation. It's a complete turn-off.

[Newton]

Only, he's not having a spat Sue on Twitter, he's harassing her. There's a difference. The fact that you think this is consistent with his behaviour over a _four year period_ confirms that this is part of a pattern.

Since you're now trying to defend doxing, I'll just link you the entire geek feminism article on the subject and let you read it at your leiusre. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Outing Short version: you getting upset about some trees doesn't trump her right to privacy.

With that said, I think it's fairly clear that you're not really interested in right and wrong here. Everything you've said has been to attack the player, not the ball. I can spot silencing tactics from a mile away, and it suggests to me that you're not prepared to engage Sue on the issues.

Oh yeah, and don't think I didn't spot your attempt at DARVO as well.

[Sue]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> Woah, where has this accusation of misogyny come

> from? Lewis gets into conflicts with people and

> they get into conflicts with him but a Twitter

> spat with Sue doesn't make him a misogynist. If

> it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for

> 4 years.

>

> I'm disappointed now that I know who Sue is that

> someone in the folk scene would be in favour of

> turning a green space as wonderful as COC into

> another waterlogged sterile place to plant graves.

> The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her

> identity exposed does suggest that she was using

> online anonymity as a shield while behaving

> trollishly on EDF.

1. It is not "a twitter spat with Sue".

It is Lewis Schaffer out of the blue posting my full name on twitter, continuing to do so when asked to stop, and associating the cemetery issue with a twitter page devoted to folk music (and community music) events which my partner and I run locally despite the fact that this issue has nothing to do with those events, and my opinions are mine and mine alone.

And it is Lewis Schaffer saying that he will continue to post my full name because I refer to him by his full name on here - carefully omitting to mention that he has posted his full name at the end of his own posts on here, so clearly he is quite happy for people on here to know it!

2. I love trees, and I have an area of woodland dedicated to me via the Woodland Trust.

My being "in the folk scene" does not mean that I throw reason to the winds and choose to ignore all the facts about the particular issue being discussed on this thread because I love trees.

3. As civilservant says above, many people on here know who I am in real life. And I post about our folk music events on here, so it is hardly a secret to those who don't know me in real life.

That does not mean I want my full name including my surname plastered all over Twitter, and Lewis Schaffer has no right whatsoever to do that.

4. How, exactly, have I "behaved trollishly on the EDF"?

[Sue]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> It's a campaign and they've been working hard to

> make it successful. Do you have a problem with

> campaigns or are you just particularly keen for

> this one to not succeed? What's it to you, Sue?

I have a problem with campaigns which are economical with the truth and which are run using the kind of methods demonstrated on this thread.

[Sue]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> Rather a lot of people on EDF seem to make a hobby

> of getting into conflicts. I'm not suggesting

> Lewis sought them out here. He was posting on this

> forum for a campaign he is involved in.

He was indeed.

And then he was banned from the forum. Why do you think that was?

[JoeLeg]

LauraW Wrote:

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

> Woah, where has this accusation of misogyny come

> from? Lewis gets into conflicts with people and

> they get into conflicts with him but a Twitter

> spat with Sue doesn't make him a misogynist. If

> it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for

> 4 years.

>

> I'm disappointed now that I know who Sue is that

> someone in the folk scene would be in favour of

> turning a green space as wonderful as COC into

> another waterlogged sterile place to plant graves.

> The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her

> identity exposed does suggest that she was using

> online anonymity as a shield while behaving

> trollishly on EDF.

Frankly I suspect you're just a shill for Lewis, who is a spoilt little child who can't take the fact that people show where he is lying.

Newton has the measure of both of you, and both of you disgust me. And your pathetic attempts at a straw man argument make you look foolish. But then that ship has already sailed...

[Loz]

Newton Wrote:

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

> I'm not sure I can think of anything that has got me angrier on the forum than reading this. Let's

> be absolutely clear: the internet isn't magic. If you're a garbage person on-line, you're a garbage

> person in real life. And if any of you associate with Lewis during or after this, you're part of

> the problem. Seriously, if you care more about some trees than an actual real live woman getting

> harassed you deserve to have children spit in your face on the street. If you want to continue your

> campaign, fine, but get him out of your group.

>

> Oh and one last thing for women associating with Lewis, don't think that because you're not the

> target this week you won't be next.

Oh, heck - you're going to get me (sort of) defending Lewis now.

Lewis was being deeply unpleasant, nasty and spiteful in tweeting that about Sue and completely out of order, but let's not extrapolate that out to him being some sort of monster roaming the countryside.

[HopOne]

Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem arguments, of which there have been countless on this thread, are unpleasant in any discourse. To continue doing this, when an individual is banned so cannot defend themselves, is just not cricket is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the subject or leave it alone. To do neither is trolling IMO.

BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I find the constant accusations of lies against anyone wanting to preserve mature trees to be objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have raised many important issues that should be debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to wonder whether that is possible on this forum.

[edhistory]

How does Brockley & Ladywell cemetery compare?

[panda boy]

> Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem arguments, of which there have been countless on this thread, are unpleasant

> in any discourse. To continue doing this, when an individual is banned so cannot defend themselves, is just not

> cricket is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the subject or

> leave it alone. To do neither is trolling IMO.

> BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I find the constant accusations of lies against anyone wanting to

> preserve mature trees to be objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have raised many important issues that should be

> debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to wonder whether that is possible on this forum.

Well said HopOne.

Thank you.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem

> arguments, of which there have been countless on

> this thread, are unpleasant in any discourse. To

> continue doing this, when an individual is banned

> so cannot defend themselves, is just not cricket

> is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on

> Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the

> subject or leave it alone. To do neither is

> trolling IMO.

>

The person is not here to defend himself because he has been banned. And frankly it is hard to see what defence he could have.

I consider my posts are relevant, because the person in question is conducting/leading a campaign which is the subject of this thread.

The manner in which that campaign is being conducted is clear to see by anyone reading the thread, and in particular the contents and tone of its leader's posts - some of which admin has had to remove altogether.

How exactly am I not "engaging with the subject"? I have stated my views clearly on the many threads started on the subject on this forum.

Why should I "leave it alone"? Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't post?

How am I trolling? How would you feel if somebody started to harass you online?

[BrandNewGuy]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I

> find the constant accusations of lies against

> anyone wanting to preserve mature trees to be

> objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have

> raised many important issues that should be

> debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to

> wonder whether that is possible on this forum.

Hahaha! That's rich. So because you wsnt to preserve trees it gets you out of any accusations of lying? And SSW debates the issue in a mature manner? Hahaha! I can only repeat what civilservant said:

"a general point - whoever is running this campaign has completely subverted their own cause. I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of whatever it is that they are trying to do - it's all drowned out by the shrillness of their voices - and I don't feel i want to even bother to find out. Because all I can hear is the sound of harassment, spite, misinformation and, oh yes, obfuscation. It's a complete turn-off."

[Penguin68]

Whilst not wanting to pour oil on the flames I do feel that people are allowed to operate more than one persona - personal comments on issues can be separated (by using different ID's and sign-offs) from comments in a corporate capacity. Lewis has decided to combine his public profile with his private one (so he posted as edborders and latterly has also signed his name, when he could, on these threads). However, even where he knows someone's personal identity, where they are not using it in a 'conversation' neither should he. He has also made (what he later admitted were) completely fictitious accusations against posters on this forum (including me) - which if not countered would have suggested we were partial players in this debate. That is not pleasant and I am shocked that he seems to be continuing this trajectory in other media.

Other supporters of his campaign are more moderate, and I welcome that. They do, however, I'm afraid, frequently fall into the trap of quoting his more outrageous statements as fact. Or dismissing them as if they are being made up by opponents of ssw. He did, really, originally suggest that the best uses of the cemeteries were for walks and picnics, and that they should be turned over for that use. He has countered any statement made by the council as to what they plan as being either a straight lie, or dissimulation to hide a greater truth.

He is of course welcome to hold the view he does, but where he uses un- and half- truths to stimulate support then he should be challenged. And he does appear to be combining his career publicity with this campaign - that's his choice but he shouldn't then attribute to others such intents for themselves. It is no encouragement to 'stand up and be counted' when doing so invites attacks and harassment.

[HopOne]

Penguin68, are you accusing me of lying? If so, then provide an example please.

[ruffers]

Seems to me this whole thread has been tainted by Lewis's aggression.

There is a conversation to be had for sure, shall we start again?

[Sue]

ruffers Wrote:

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

> Seems to me this whole thread has been tainted by

> Lewis's aggression.

>

> There is a conversation to be had for sure, shall

> we start again?

Good idea.

New thread? Different title? Discussion sticking to actual verifiable facts plus opinion clearly stated as opinion?

Probably started by somebody opposed to the council's plans but able to unemotionally state why?

ETA: Maybe even seeking common ground? Revolutionary idea, I know .....

[Penguin68]

Penguin68, are you accusing me of lying? If so, then provide an example please.

No, I am not.

However you refer to the trees in the cemeteries as 'Grade 1 SINC woods' - as far as I know this is inaccurate.

You suggest that the council should reuse ?the currently used space that they have for local burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they intend only to reuse space in the existing cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that means, presumably you would insist on a residence test both for the deceased and those arranging the funerals? Apart from that, the council is planning to use the designated cemetery areas for funerals. The issue about 'non residents' being buried here as being important is somewhat exploded by the campaign's express desire for all Southwark residents to be buried in future out of borough. You have mitigated this, certainly, but has the campaign?

You assert the ?current path is ?unsustainable? ? but reusing existing cemeteries is exactly that, ?bad for the environment? ? again the plan to replant trees and maintain the cemeteries instead of allowing them to slip back into the target for fly tipping that they were, would be good for the environment; and bad for ?public health? which is nonsense originated in the earlier part of the campaign which talked about rotting corpse fluids flowing into Forest Hill Road (hyperbolic rubbish). This issue about flood protection is also not really valid, although of course proper care will be need to be taken with drainage. The Old Cemetery has in the past had parts waterlogged but has never been the cause of floods. Nor is it likely to be in the future.

This is all taken from one post of yours on the previous page of this thread. You are not lying, but your assertions are challengeable. This is very different from the clear and admitted inventions of a now banned poster.