Jump to content

conspiracy theories

Easties EL

By Easties EL
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Narnia

Narnia

Posted
Posted
I haven't read all of this thread but enough to get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile Hal was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a moderator) or the forum would be shut down. Thus if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can mention out loud, were to retire from it, then it would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum would be nigh.As my post about moderators was moved to the 'about the forum' section which nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that there is some conspiracy happening here about which I know very little but which appears to have on one side HAL as the victim and two others as the aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!
SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

Nothing Hals fault declan. Chill

your boots. Im just exhausted with nonsense arguments. By the time I regretted saying I would leave people had quoted my post so I left it. Hal isn't in any trouble


you on the other hand


your post about moderation Is about the forum so it's in the right place. If noone goes there then that just proves my point about conspiracies and people.


I moderate on here. It's been recorded on the forum many a time Happy? Not all moderators are as happy being exposed tho. Maybe you could accord them some respect

????

????

Posted
Posted

Declan Wrote:

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

> I haven't read all of this thread but enough to

> get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has

> stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile Hal

> was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a

> moderator) or the forum would be shut down. Thus

> if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can

> mention out loud, were to retire from it, then it

> would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum

> would be nigh.As my post about moderators was

> moved to the 'about the forum' section which

> nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that there

> is some conspiracy happening here about which I

> know very little but which appears to have on one

> side HAL as the victim and two others as the

> aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!


that's one of the most paranoid posts i've ever read

Narnia

Narnia

Posted
Posted


Sean, I really don't know where you are coming from. Happy about what? I haven't exposed a moderator to the masses as none confide in me. So who am I supposed to accord respect to?


I doubt HAL cares if he is in trouble but you suggest that I am. What sort of trouble am I in? It seems to me you are worn out and you need a rest. I don't mean that patronisingly but simply because I've seen the odd post of yours here and there and you just seem pi**ed off. That's a shame if it's true.

Narnia

Narnia

Posted
Posted

Well try reading between the lines and it wont sound so paranoid.



???? Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I haven't read all of this thread but enough to

> > get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has

> > stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile

> Hal

> > was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a

> > moderator) or the forum would be shut down.

> Thus

> > if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can

> > mention out loud, were to retire from it, then

> it

> > would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum

> > would be nigh.As my post about moderators was

> > moved to the 'about the forum' section which

> > nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that

> there

> > is some conspiracy happening here about which I

> > know very little but which appears to have on

> one

> > side HAL as the victim and two others as the

> > aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!

>

> that's one of the most paranoid posts i've ever

> read

????

????

Posted
Posted

Declan Wrote:

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

> >

> Sean, I really don't know where you are coming

> from. Happy about what? I haven't exposed a

> moderator to the masses as none confide in me. So

> who am I supposed to accord respect to?

>

> I doubt HAL cares if he is in trouble but you

> suggest that I am. What sort of trouble am I in?

> It seems to me you are worn out and you need a

> rest. I don't mean that patronisingly but simply

> because I've seen the odd post of yours here and

> there and you just seem pi**ed off. That's a shame

> if it's true.

silverfox

silverfox

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> That's why I give you such short shrift Silverfox,

> because you make silly assumptions based on gut

> feel.

>

> For some idiotic reason you think that there's

> 'the man' somewhere who's reducing the speed limit

> just to piss you off?


Posted by: ruffers Today, 12:45AM

Huguenot speaks the truth.


Now, Huguenot and his mate ruffers would have us believe that traffic spped reductions to a level slower than a horse and cart laden with coal and ore on a turnpike road during the industrial revolution actually speeds up our journeys - that is after we've waitied five minutes at each of 20 sets of traffic lights. ruffers thinks this is a truism.


On the contrary, I, and most right thinking people, know that that is what they want us to think. Unable to trust their own senses, thinking the car's rolling backwards as you see a granny with a trolley overtaking you, oblivious to the fact that recreational joggers doing a paced 8 miles an hour arrive at your destination half an our before you do, they persist in their quasi-religious belief.


We have to stand up to such nonesense. Why? Because if we don't next we'll have the the likes of Huguenot and ruffers claiming it's their human rights to ride a tandem in the fast lane of the M1 from London to Glasgow and beyond and hey, if it slows you down it actually speeds you up - counter-intuitive like.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • camberwell57
      Checking refs of these builders

      By camberwell57 · Posted

      Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • malumbu
      Will Mandelson be accepted across the pond.

      By malumbu · Posted

      I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • enya
      John Marx (Top Marx Kitchens): highly recommended kitchen fitter

      By enya · Posted

      We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Suggsy
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Suggsy · Posted

      Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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