|
Post by naymissus on Jul 19, 2010 6:15:45 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. Aqua, I hesitate to say this too such a nice bloke (as myself), but bollocks I do recall ancient times on the BBC boards (when is that bloated corrupt grasping organisation that makes millionaires of Chief Executives and tossers such as Woss by producing piles off offal going to be cut down to size? It is possibly the most insidiously toxic PC institution in the Kingdom {I would say Queendom only to be accused of homophobia from the usual sources})when I was a restrained, polite poster who would not think of being unpleasant to anyone, being surrounded by hostile forces that definitely were a clique. personal abuse removed . Eventually the BBC banned me despite my being a good bloke an no raw prawn matey. So in my wanderings in the wilderness, I came across what I thought might be an oasis of succour, a repository of chummy chit-chat in the form of the WH(ex BBC) board. Can you imagine my horror when I discovered a new clique, with Jean ), ...at its centre that had a thread going exclusively to attack one Sim! (A person I later came to admire greatly, just as I admire you dear Aqua [and for much the same reasons, you will be happy to hear]) Oh what a clique was that with some very strange and volatile people that used the most vile language (that would have shocked my Provost Sergeant of yore) to attack him. You may well know them Aqua, as I believe you joined their club - Cakeboard, after I dispersed that motley shower of ill-mannered malcontents. Because what I read made me angry, so I went on the offensive and after a while they got fed up and left to form Cakeboard (it may have already existed) Then MR calls my attention to WoM, which I rarely if ever, visit, and I find that on that board there are accusations, from quarters unknown, of another clique forming (hotly denied as these things invariably are). And who do I find is at the centre of this alleged clique.? Why, non other than Jean once more! Could this concatenation of alleged cliques withh jean being prominently centre-stage at each unveiling be entirely co-incidental? Is it coincidence tha Jean is a member of the Mason-like Lodge 22 Cake board from whence her idiot chum Spesh ventures out to shut down boards? The questions demand an answer Who gives two brass farthings if no answer is forthcoming? But the suspicions remain
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Jul 19, 2010 7:10:22 GMT
You want to be careful Joe.....
Lest your halo strangles you.
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Jul 19, 2010 7:24:42 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. How very right you are,Aqua. Friend Moth is the author of any problems he encounters. He is also a liar. I had the misfortune to have a run-in with him on the BBC boards about a year ago.Very unpleasant it was too. He is of the type who think anyone speaking or thinking differently from him is in a clique(sound familiar?) I walked away from that pointless argument. Next thing,he rolls up on my board as Airhairlair(sp?) His sole object....to cause trouble. After a warning,and continued problems,he was banned....only to return as Conformordie....and also banned. Those who want to side with him...fine.But please don't make him out to be some kind of martyr.....he ain't. And should my above words put me in a clique,well......perhaps less time on the computer and more time in the fresh air might help.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 7:34:38 GMT
Behave yourselves, playmates. I don't want spesh closing THIS board down. I contains a very valuable archive that has been accumulating nicely without your help.
Please edit your posts to remove any unseemly words that the unscrupulous might tittle tattle to proboards admin with.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 19, 2010 8:09:12 GMT
Thank you, sinistral. I don't think there are many people who would think of putting you and me in the same clique, so your experience of the poster we're talking about is valuable. I am a member of your board (as is the marchesa), but I don't visit it often because I'm not very good at the Mornington Crescent-style wordplay that is its peculiar glory (I do admire it, even if I can't do it). That means that I could have summoned you here by PM - but you and I both know that I did not. Behave yourselves, playmates... Please edit your posts to remove any unseemly words that the unscrupulous might tittle tattle to proboards admin with. I can understand your fears, marchesa, since this board has now suddenly become so popular - but if I were you I'd start with your OP.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 19, 2010 8:14:41 GMT
Could this concatenation of alleged cliques withh jean being prominently centre-stage at each unveiling be entirely co-incidental? I am sorry to disappoint you, nay, but yes, it could.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jul 19, 2010 10:57:03 GMT
Thank you, sinistral. I don't think there are many people who would think of putting you and me in the same clique, so your experience of the poster we're talking about is valuable. ah well now there is the rub. and very interesting as both sinsistral and jean happen to be very good friends with one particular poster who has had it in for Johnny ever since she ventured onto the mornington crescent board. the person i speak of makes friendsand flatters them no end (i believe to get them 'on side'). that person is central to the scenario, however disappeared smartly when the game was exposed after only a couple of excursions onto WOM (to abuse johnny). furthermore she is/was very much part of the clique, also a member of cakeboard, and was exposed on the now defunct beeb womens hour board, along with others of the cake clique for their ganging up on lone individuals or anyone who had the temerity to question them.. will be back later as i have to go out for a while.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jul 19, 2010 11:03:54 GMT
Could this concatenation of alleged cliques withh jean being prominently centre-stage at each unveiling be entirely co-incidental? I am sorry to disappoint you, nay, but yes, it could. no co-incidence at all, nay.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 11:36:36 GMT
Ah, yes, pippa, name removed.
Jean's protegées are almost always inveterate, invidious little stirrers. personal abuse removed I joined Alan's latest board recently only to discover name removed. was already there, so I withdrew without posting. There are some people one goes a long way to avoid! Personally I find it very easy to avoid 'em. Amazing that sinistral seems to have found a kindred spirit in name removed. I don't understand that at all! These "alliances" with "my enemy's enemy" are weird!
Hope name removed. doesn't rejoin us here again!
I'll let the deletions and insertions stand just in case jean comes back in a few weeks and denies she ever did it, or if she did it was just an honest mistake with the modding button.
|
|
|
Post by naymissus on Jul 19, 2010 11:49:34 GMT
Ah, name removed. A ridiculous little creature, well suited to fit nicely inder Jean's wing. I remember her getting very upset about how nasty people can be on these boards, and calling someone an arshehole and a cesspit. quite without irony.
Still I hold nothing against her but avoid her pouting, foot-stamping presence like the plague
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 11:58:33 GMT
Oh, see how our little mod stamps her foot in defence of her protegés. Always the same! Jean's at her most hypocritical and deceitful when being "protective" of her pals.
Amazing how we can mention everyone except the gilded one.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 19, 2010 12:03:11 GMT
I am not defending a protegé, marchesa - I'm defending someone who isn't here to defend herself against some very nasty allegations.
Pippafox at least had the decency not to mention the poster's name.
You don't get it, do you?
Anyone who you know is reading what you say about them on this thread - fine, say whatever you like. I haven't edited out anything you've said about me, and aqua can look after himself. But fomenting conspiracy theories about posters who aren't here - that's despicable.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 12:12:22 GMT
That sounds like a "nasty" threat to me, jean. You go too far, lady, with your hypocritical self-righteousness. Did I say "whited sepulchre"? That was understatement.
This board has prospered very well without you lately. Suggest you go and throw your weight around somewhere where your style is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 19, 2010 12:20:19 GMT
I did the very opposite of "foment" a conspiracy theory, incidentally, jean. But don't let that get in the way of an indignant accusation.
I said
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”?
You're losing your fabled talent for forensic dissection of an opponent's argument, jean.
What I said is plain for all to see at the top of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 19, 2010 12:26:38 GMT
Yes - but I am not referring to what you said in your OP, marchesa,
What I'm talking about now is the unseemly eagerness with which you throw yourself behind pippa's theorising.
Do you understand now?
|
|