|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 15, 2010 15:07:07 GMT
The regulars have been chewing the fat over "Mister" Moat the ******* psychopath who thankfully topped himself. Was he a nutter or not? Clearly he was but only one poster, named "quotes" called the emperors new clothes. www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766781?thread=7616930&skip=0&show=20Brilliant, quotes, couldn't agree more! Amazing that it took until post 70 to get such a succinct statement. The man was indeed a ”_______nutter”. The detour about mental health issues was PC nonsense. Sorry, aqua, you're being prissy, again. Johnny, yes, you are being attacked by a clique, and niggled and needled to death. They don't like being described as such, but they are. No “conspiracy” either necessary or implied. Just habitual "group think" and the nasty enjoyment of attacking a mouthy outsider who clearly doesn't share the putative esoteric board ambience. Do sharks homing in on blood “conspire”? Carry on with your highly entertaining battles with the whited sepulchre, johnny There are plenty lurkers smiling in the wings! So long as you start threads she will be there, drawn like a flame to the moth. (Sorry, if that’s been done before!) VERY entertaining thread, BTW, everyone! Just goes to show that what jean pretends to distain (“I certainly wouldn't have started a thread about it”) is actually pure nostalgie de la boue. The spectacle of her rolling in it is extremely enjoyable to those of us who have watched her make a board career of it. Jean would die if she couldn’t regularly vent her aggression by putting what her fans perceive as her elegant boot into some beloved enemy as light relief from more intellectual nit-picking. We've seen her go through these men (they are invariably men - why?) like a whore at a barracks. Well done, indeed, all of you, for engineering this spectacle once again! And especial thanks to Johnny! You too have your groupies, don’t doubt it!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 16, 2010 8:53:38 GMT
Why, marchesa, how thoughtful of you to repost this here!
It was never going to survive on the Beeb, so I missed the chance of replying there.
I won't dignify the personal stuff with a reply, but you should note that the point of the thread wasn't the word nutter in general - which I am not much bothered about, as I said - so much as the particular instance of the police reading out a 'message of support' that contained it, and so repeating it and giving it some sort of official endorsement.
So the crucial part of quotes's posting was
"Of course, it was unwise to use such language whilst Mr Moat could hear it. "
As I had said in my msg 8:
"Isn't it also rather odd for the police to read out messages of support from members of the public?
That alone would deserve a reprimand."
I did not know then what Preacher revealed in msg 40:
"...the impropriety – the danger, even – of calling someone a nutter was demonstrated in the case of the fugitive Raoul Moat. The police, at a press/broadcasting conference, quoted from a card of support received from a member of the public that described Moat as a nutter. Moat saw the broadcast, and then extended his villainy with a vow to kill members of the public as a consequence. We must be thankful that he did not get the opportunity to put his wicked scheme into practice."
That, surely, was all that needed to be said.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 16, 2010 8:59:09 GMT
This must be a first!
I'll say no more. Exchanging posts with you is not a life-enhancing activity. But take the last word, by all means! I know from LONG experience just how much it means to you.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 17, 2010 11:36:08 GMT
Obvious that the Nutters thread on WoM has now been closed down but the board mods are far too genteel to whack a big grey notice across the top saying so. To do so might acknowledge something disreputable was happening there and they wouldn’t want to disturb the status quo with such an implication.
Nevertheless interest in THIS thread continues apace with 94 viewings since yesterday, presumably from interested BBC lurkers, since we know the resident WoM chorus wouldn’t demean themselves pursuing prey here.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 17, 2010 12:05:49 GMT
Obvious that the Nutters thread on WoM has now been closed down... I don't think so, marchesa - it's still open. Perhaps there really is nothing further to say? What has brought the interested BBC lurkers here I couldn't say - maybe prurient curiosity such as Brian's? In any case, they won't be able to leave a comment here unless they join.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 17, 2010 14:58:47 GMT
55 62 guests were "prurient" enough to view an unexpurgated message, here - some of them twice since there are now 115 views recorded. I'm gratified. Are you so sure the WoM chorus weren't amongst them? We'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 17, 2010 16:43:45 GMT
Are you so sure the WoM chorus weren't amongst them? I'm sure they were - but whether they agree with you that I am best described as a whited sepulchre - that's what I'm not so sure about. You and I go back a long way, marchesa. We have had our good and our bad moments, I think you'll agree. And I think you must thank aqua (to whom you were also rather rude in your modded post, repeated above) for doing his very best to get me to ignore the abuse, and appreciate your undoubted intelligence and occasional wit. But you have not seemed able to get it into your head that personal abuse never, ever advances a discussion. I do my best not to resort to it, and if that makes me a whited sepulchre in your eyes, it's something I'll just have to live with. I have an idea, though. If you are really interested in the subject matter of the Nutter thread, why don't you post your reply again - suitably expurgated, - and I'll post mine. The we can see if the thread really has any more mileage in it. But we won't do the abuse stuff, OK?.
|
|
|
Post by naymissus on Jul 18, 2010 19:40:52 GMT
Hullo! This look as if this board is getting interesting once more,so I thought I would rejoin, I must say that Aqua was getting uncommonly agressive on that thread. It must be my moderating influence that keeps him in line.
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Jul 18, 2010 19:52:51 GMT
Oh well Joe.....
If you're here then I might as well rejoin....
Perhaps Aqua's knicker elastic was too tight.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Jul 18, 2010 22:56:45 GMT
Oh well Joe..... If you're here then I might as well rejoin.... Perhaps Aqua's knicker elastic was too tight. First time I've ever heard that one, Sini. It's so funny, I went and wet them!
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Jul 18, 2010 23:03:40 GMT
Hullo! This look as if this board is getting interesting once more,so I thought I would rejoin, I must say that Aqua was getting uncommonly agressive on that thread. It must be my moderating influence that keeps him in line. It is. You have been my rod and staff for narry a year, nay, for narry a year, I say, nay. Eh?
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Jul 18, 2010 23:25:27 GMT
Johnny, yes, you are being attacked by a clique, and niggled and needled to death. They don't like being described as such, but they are. No “conspiracy” either necessary or implied. Just habitual "group think" and the nasty enjoyment of attacking a mouthy outsider who clearly doesn't share the putative esoteric board ambience. MR, you well know that it’s the mouthy or mothy outsiders who are the ones who attack first, and nastily; and that the defenders are rather restrained, or refained, in their retorts. In your case, because you’ve retained your original BBC name and don’t deny it, the evidence is there for all to see. In Johnny’s case, because he denies his previous names, the evidence is slightly harder to collect, but once collected is even more damning because of the denial.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2010 23:47:14 GMT
WOW! Nice to see you all again!
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Jul 19, 2010 0:04:25 GMT
Just habitual "group think" You're way off the mark there, MR. Have you actually read more than a few WoM threads? There's no party line. Even the couple of posters who try to lay down the law from a supposed position of authority get mauled (terribly terribly politely, of course). Well done, indeed, all of you, for engineering this spectacle once again! And especial thanks to Johnny! You too have your groupies, don’t doubt it! If Johnny has his groupies, is he the leader of the (HITH) gang?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 0:33:32 GMT
No I don't read WoM any more, aqua. When I first encountered it early in 2007 it was fresh and new to me but it soon became samey and repetitive. I always found it a very tiny playpool for a staggeringly small number of regulars who treat it like a private club. I just don't understand why the BBC finances this sort of activity for tiny cliques. The boards should be closed altogether. It's not as if the BBC is maintaining high standards. There are tons of places where a MUCH higher level of discourse can be found on the internet. I think the Wom crowd in particular are a bunch snobs who think there is some cachet in having taken over a "flagship". and made it their own. They don't like Johnysmoth? Tough. He is as entertaining as anyone else there, more so than some. But then I've always been very tolerant of dissent.
|
|