Can the anonymous defenders of free speech defend what they write too? (From Bucks Free Press)

I’m almost certain that you would include me in your grouping of anonymous posters, but yes, I am happy to defend the comments I leave.

In particular, I have often written on the blogs by Ivor Bigun. You may call his strong views forthright, however I, along with many other posters, consider many of his comments to be highly detrimental to the town of High Wycombe, and often offensive when he uses unnecessary sexual innuendo.
He makes outrageous claims within his obviously fabricated stories, yet always claims that they are 100% true. In his Tuesday blog this week, he expresses sadness due to political correctness stopping the pinching of ladies bottoms, whilst describing an event in a shop where a lady bent over in front of him. He is effectively saddened that he can no longer commit the crime of sexual assault. Yet you defend him…

By defending him, and his right to freely make comments in the BFP like this, along with many many other similar examples, does that not make you and the BFP morally and equally guilty?

Just to add to my comments above; Ivor Bigun has posted a blog today, falsely describing walking through the town centre whilst looking out for sewage flowing down the street… Is this how a regular contributor to the BFP should describe our town???

Is this the type of free speech that you recommend and support within your publication?

"I would, however defend this because we know who Ivor is (and he isn’t me), he is a genuine local person with strong views and he is accountable for all his print edition comments through me. "
If Ivors blog is the work of a person you believe what you state above then you are truly living in a different world. You condoned his peado blog which was of such fiction he knew he had gone too far and changed the wording?
I stopped buying the bfp the moment you put a column in by ivor, if that is the level of journalism you are after it is nothing but fiction, as I am sure you are aware.
I think this pretty much sums up the state of the BFP at the moment - nothing short of a joke.
I can only imagine you need ivors column to keep the hits coming in to your website so as to boost revenue because judging by the Star these days you would otherwise be very short of advertising revenue.

Perhaps instead of writing this tripe and defending the 'honour' of the man of mystery you should actually do your job as an editor on this paper and presumably this website?

If you did actually edit this website you might have noticed the rolling banner advert at the top of the home page has an advert for the Marlow Heraing Clinic and the website address is wrongly spelt as well.

You must be very proud of such a professional paper...

I'm not getting this Steve.
You condone racism, you condone abuse, you condone out and out fabrication and sexism. You defend a man who writes such utter drivel that people are disgusted and say so time and time again.
You say it is because of "free speech" but then accuse those who are upset by Ivor as being "cyber bullies".So they are expected to sit back and allow him to say such unfair, untrue and spiteful things?
You then make pathetic excuses as to why you cannot moderate comments -other papers manage.
Anyway you say that you are accountable for Ivor's words.
Fair enough - you want to shoulder the responsibility for this chap that is up to you.
I do not comment on Ivor's page anymore because I was getting fed up with the deliberate winding up and disrespect he was showing his readers and because someone pointed out to me that perhaps my constant picking holes in his blogs was putting people off.
So I stopped.
I don't think I have EVER moaned about free speech and not being able to say what I think - on the contrary, I know that sometimes I have gone too far.
This petty little article says a lot about your views Steve.
In my mind, you defend the indefensible.

"he is accountable for all his print edition comments through me"

so... this doesn't include the blogs which appear on the website then?

if not, why not?

in more professional publications, polemic akin to the rot that ivor routinely comes out with is either attributed to a real person with a genuine identity (your A.A. Gills, or Rod Liddles of the world), or are works of satire which aren't passed off as the truth to begin with (anything on the onion, or the daily mash for example)

ivor occupies a strange middle-ground, where he can claim that the most inflammatory, offensive garbage is the sworn truth, despite it clearly having no grounding in reality (my personal pet peeve is his occasional pseudoscientific scaremongering, backed up by ludicrous claims of being learned in such matters (whilst clearly having about as much knowledge on the subjects as a tub of adipose)... though away from this, such insight into his sinister views on women (of all ages), those less well off, people who live in Castlefield, (or any other subset of society he elects to spew forth his bile towards on any given day) also tends to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

like Demoness, I stopped posting on his blog when I realised that I was adding to the problem by fueling the grade-A bullplop he was spouting, and like Melanie I've not read the BFP print edition since you granted him with an even larger soapbox from which he can hurl abuse at the town he claims to love.

your attitude towards his detractors is baffling, to say the least.

"However, in hosting these forums, we cannot actively moderate the comments because otherwise it would effectively be impossible to run spontaneous comments 24/7. We have to rely on the good sense of the public, and we respond to any complaints we receive."

Yes you do respond by censoring - you have removed a comment of mine in the past, because someone from WDC did not like to be disagreed with, there was no agression or swearing no name mentioned even.
.
Steve, you place news articles on this website and effectively encourage people to comment, allowing them to use a pseudonym, then you complain about some of the comments. I do agree that some people are way over the top with their comments. But very many of the posters give very intelligent, interesting and knowledgable arguments, other postings come from the heart. You say that you will defend Ivor because he is a genuine local person with strong views, so am I but you choose to censor me.

I very much doubt that Steve Cohen will respond to any of these comments. Like his favourite blogger Ivor, he runs scared when confronted with the truth.

Whilst on the topic of "Ivor Bigun" and his regular slot within the printed edition, I was somewhat offended by your launch of Ivor and your use of a silhouette of Ivor giving your readers the big middle finger.

We should have all realised then, that it was fully your intention to offend your readers in many differing ways, so as to get your response figures up.

Along with others, at that point, I also stopped buying the printed edition of the BFP, which was effectively my way of returning the offensive middle finger gesture back at you.

it always looked like an index finger to me

but anyway Mister Cohen, lets take today's column... ivor claims not to be able to find an indoor archery club in the area? foregoing the fact that I once attended it, a simple Google search of 'archery wycombe' returns the very same local club. wouldn't it be nice if your pet idiot could promote these local ventures for a change, rather than act as if they didn't exist?

Actually Steve... you are going on about people hiding behind pseudonyms on keyboards and then defending the writer behind the biggest pseudonym going.
Do you really think that anyone believes that Ivor Bigun is his real name? That he lives in a mansion house in Booker when there is no such record of either him or his house?
I'll tell you what... you let us know what Ivor's real name is, or at least encourage him to write under it and maybe we will all take your claims of cyber bullying under false names more seriously.
You can't have it both ways Mr Cohen :)

I still think it's the big middle finger, as it shows a knuckle to the side of the extended finger. Take a look here.

http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/911
7281.Blogger_Ivor_ha
nded_weekly_BFP_colu
mn/

I still think it's the big middle finger, as it shows a knuckle to the side of the extended finger. Take a look here.

http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/911
7281.Blogger_Ivor_ha
nded_weekly_BFP_colu
mn/

All of you posters here, are nothing more than stupid mugs. You’ve all been had by Steve Cohen, and Ivor.

It was obvious from the start, and the way that BFP announced Ivor was to be handed his own weekly BFP column, that it was fully anticipated and intended that Ivor would create controversy, and therefore provoke reactions.

Have none of you realised that no matter how much you complain, Ivor just continues.

Newsquest are laughing their socks off at this. Your comments are often as outrageous as those made by Ivor, and therefore create a following of their own. I admit that I often look at Ivor’s blog just to see who he has upset this time, so even I am one of the targeted readers that have succumbed to the Newsquest plan of attracting readers by use of some highly contemptible stories, and the reactions they provoke. Some of you go over the top with your comments, some are just plainly silly, whilst others are well considered. But you just don’t get it, do you?

Of course Ivor isn’t an employee of the BFP or Newsquest. Most columnists are freelancers, and Ivor is no different. He has a detailed brief, and he sticks to it.

Well done Newsquest! You’ve fooled all of the people all of the time.

With regards to Ivor, I think it’s all jolly good fun. Anyone with half a brain can see that Ivor and his spiritual mansion, pocket billiards and fine organ is someone’s idea of a big hoot. The man dishes it out. The issue that upsets a lot of people is not whether Ivor’s true identity is known by The Powers That Be, but that regardless he is given free reign to write the most preposterous, uninteresting things and become, time and time again, the most read and commented upon news article on the website! Who can forget the blog about favourite sandwich fillings? I notice in recent blogs he is becoming even more outlandish with his innuendo and sentiments, so much so that one cannot take him seriously at all. It baffles me why the BFP chooses to make a spoof of itself, but I for one enjoy it and end up browsing far more on the website than I would have done without Ivor. In a roundabout way, Ivor has become a saving grace and is a man after my own beating heart.

LONG LIVE IVOR! Thank him for his valued comments.

DavidSimpson2, I'm nobody's fool... if ivor's writer were to contribute under his own name, I'd have no particular issue with the existence of the blog - yes, it would still be offensive at times, yes, I would still disagree with pretty much everything he's ever said, but at least a real human being would be accountable for saying it, and he might be forced to think twice before saying something which victimizes some undeserving section of the community

if it were a random blog on 'blogger.com' or somewhere, then fair enough, I wouldn't really expect any sort of journalistic integrity to be maintained... but when you're representing a local newspaper (as a freelance contributor or otherwise) you should at least accept a modicum of responsibility for what you write

Edna_Welthorpe_ wrote:
With regards to Ivor, I think it’s all jolly good fun. Anyone with half a brain can see that Ivor and his spiritual mansion, pocket billiards and fine organ is someone’s idea of a big hoot. The man dishes it out. The issue that upsets a lot of people is not whether Ivor’s true identity is known by The Powers That Be, but that regardless he is given free reign to write the most preposterous, uninteresting things and become, time and time again, the most read and commented upon news article on the website! Who can forget the blog about favourite sandwich fillings? I notice in recent blogs he is becoming even more outlandish with his innuendo and sentiments, so much so that one cannot take him seriously at all. It baffles me why the BFP chooses to make a spoof of itself, but I for one enjoy it and end up browsing far more on the website than I would have done without Ivor. In a roundabout way, Ivor has become a saving grace and is a man after my own beating heart.

LONG LIVE IVOR! Thank him for his valued comments.

This coming from a creation of Joe Orton :))

AAHHHH - are any of us real?
Am I in fact a real creature of hell as opposed to a real person hiding behind a daft name?
I don't know anymore :((((

demoness the second wrote:
AAHHHH - are any of us real?
Am I in fact a real creature of hell as opposed to a real person hiding behind a daft name?
I don't know anymore :((((

The BFP isn't real, Steve Cohen isn't real, let alone you or me. ;-)

I think Ivor may be real, but not in this dimension.

Alberto The Great wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
AAHHHH - are any of us real?
Am I in fact a real creature of hell as opposed to a real person hiding behind a daft name?
I don't know anymore :((((

The BFP isn't real, Steve Cohen isn't real, let alone you or me. ;-)

I think Ivor may be real, but not in this dimension.

This could be a whole new philosophical debate...:)

demoness the second wrote:

Alberto The Great wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
AAHHHH - are any of us real?
Am I in fact a real creature of hell as opposed to a real person hiding behind a daft name?
I don't know anymore :((((

The BFP isn't real, Steve Cohen isn't real, let alone you or me. ;-)

I think Ivor may be real, but not in this dimension.

This could be a whole new philosophical debate...:)

Well, you won't see Steve Cohen in a debate. He just drops a covering topic into the BFP, and then walks away....

So. Let's see. Can I add a comment without being attacked by someone who is not anonymous? Because that's all right, isn't it Steve?

Morag wrote:
So. Let's see. Can I add a comment without being attacked by someone who is not anonymous? Because that's all right, isn't it Steve?

To quote Animal Farm...

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others....

;)))))xxx

Alberto The Great wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Alberto The Great wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
AAHHHH - are any of us real?
Am I in fact a real creature of hell as opposed to a real person hiding behind a daft name?
I don't know anymore :((((

The BFP isn't real, Steve Cohen isn't real, let alone you or me. ;-)

I think Ivor may be real, but not in this dimension.

This could be a whole new philosophical debate...:)

Well, you won't see Steve Cohen in a debate. He just drops a covering topic into the BFP, and then walks away....

If he doesn't answer these comments, how is he "accountable"?

well it does appear that he may actually read the comments that we have left here as Heraing has now been replaced by Hearing, finally!

Kentp wrote :
.
"Your attitude towards his (Ivor's) detractors is baffling, to say the least".
.
I agree - at this time of year the countryside resounds almost unbearably with their noisy smelly diesel engines.
.
Baffles would be good.

DavdSimpson2 wrote
.
"Newsquest are laughing their socks off at this".
.
Do corporations really wear socks. And do such large organizations actually 'laugh' ?
.
You see, folks , this is what happens when this so-called 'Free Speech' is given 'free' rein.
.
And is the 'Free' in 'Free Speech' the same 'Free' as in 'Bucks Free Press' ?
.
PS I did try laughing (until I was almost exhausted) but my socks stayed resolutely on my feet. Perhaps I should wash them now and again as they nowadays seemed to have become quite 'clingy'.
.
Has anybody got some 'free' advice ? (but no sales personnel pls)
.

Steve Cohen wrote :
.
For example, he or she wrote: “In your headline (enclosed), you have used the word ‘got’ As you must know it is very poor English and it is entirely superfluous. Get a grip.”
.
I am surmising but I think you may find that the word was in fact 'git' and was a literal reference to your 'Mr Bigun'.
.
Nevertheless , we send our regards

''They hide behind their computer screens and pump out views that they would never have the guts to publicly express.''

Hi Steve, and thanks for actually standing up to be counted as it were, but I must take issue with you on the above point, I hope this becomes a debate with you writing a column expressing your feelings and views rather than making a statement.

I post anonymously because when dealing with some of the bigotry I encounter on here, I would be daft not to. Do you really think I could get a reasonable debate out of 'bucks nationalist' or 'stand up for england' or even Tigger (now there's a keyboard warrior) if I were to encounter them in my day to day work? Do you think Rev pete is a man that you want 'on your case' as it were, bearing in mind he's brave enough to spout his claptrap at a pride march? In your paper you have allowed rascism (travellers are covered by the race relations act) and homophobia, people who carry out this kind of behaviour are not known for being reasonable.So I agree that with freedom of speech comes responsibilities,but those responsibilities will weigh even more heavily on your shoulders.When I have complained you have mostly reacted well, but really, your paper should be pro-active rather than reactive, you have left some very nasty comments sit for a very long time.
At work and home I am very vocal about my views on those two issues as well as others, but I'm not likely to challenge a shaven headed thug about his views on race am I? And I don't (mostly) know who I am addressing on here.
I would gladly make myself known to you and go down the pub to debate your editing style and my views, but I think your hands are tied by your publishers, Newsquest aren't renowned for their liberal views eh?

As for Ivor, the man's a twit, he is neither funny nor informative, he makes sweeping statements which he cannot back up, mostly because they aren't true.His views on women belong in the 1950's. You owe a debt to the people of Wycombe who have invested their money in this town, and to the advertisers in your paper to, at the very least, paint a true picture of the town, ideally you should be promoting it.
You have a great opportunity to drag the bfp into the 21st century, why not take it?
I look forward to your response.

sai-diva wrote:
''They hide behind their computer screens and pump out views that they would never have the guts to publicly express.''

Hi Steve, and thanks for actually standing up to be counted as it were, but I must take issue with you on the above point, I hope this becomes a debate with you writing a column expressing your feelings and views rather than making a statement.

I post anonymously because when dealing with some of the bigotry I encounter on here, I would be daft not to. Do you really think I could get a reasonable debate out of 'bucks nationalist' or 'stand up for england' or even Tigger (now there's a keyboard warrior) if I were to encounter them in my day to day work? Do you think Rev pete is a man that you want 'on your case' as it were, bearing in mind he's brave enough to spout his claptrap at a pride march? In your paper you have allowed rascism (travellers are covered by the race relations act) and homophobia, people who carry out this kind of behaviour are not known for being reasonable.So I agree that with freedom of speech comes responsibilities,but those responsibilities will weigh even more heavily on your shoulders.When I have complained you have mostly reacted well, but really, your paper should be pro-active rather than reactive, you have left some very nasty comments sit for a very long time.
At work and home I am very vocal about my views on those two issues as well as others, but I'm not likely to challenge a shaven headed thug about his views on race am I? And I don't (mostly) know who I am addressing on here.
I would gladly make myself known to you and go down the pub to debate your editing style and my views, but I think your hands are tied by your publishers, Newsquest aren't renowned for their liberal views eh?

As for Ivor, the man's a twit, he is neither funny nor informative, he makes sweeping statements which he cannot back up, mostly because they aren't true.His views on women belong in the 1950's. You owe a debt to the people of Wycombe who have invested their money in this town, and to the advertisers in your paper to, at the very least, paint a true picture of the town, ideally you should be promoting it.
You have a great opportunity to drag the bfp into the 21st century, why not take it?
I look forward to your response.

This is wonderful - I wish I had written it.
But basically - what Sai Diva says .
I will meet you in that pub as well :))

You have all seen me on television: I'm the shadow of as a well known blond female breakfast television presenter from the area and I am always happy to back up my views in public; and often in front of the camera.

OK, that's not true. I'm hiding behind my nom de guerre.

I dislike a lot of what I read here in the comments section and believe many people are behaving like trolls. I don't come across such incendiary and outrageous views in normal life. I also think those that comment currently need protection if they disagree with others because of the "disease in which reasonable normal people become mad obsessed ‘trolls’ and think it is their democratic right to be viciously rude to anyone they want." I also don't want to be subject to that.

The only way of stopping it is by making the trolls responsible for their opinions in some way.

YouTube gets around this by automatically hiding comments from people that have been 'disliked' by enough people above a certain threshold. From what I have seen this would mean Ivor's responses to comments in his blog would not be seen. Hurrah.

If you were to add another layer of protection and threatened people with removal from the group if too many people complained about them, then perhaps it might temper their comments. If you subsequently remove someone, then that email address cannot be allowed to join again. (I should emphasise that there is a big difference between 'Dislike' and 'Complain'/'Report' a post)

All of this can be done easily enough - but at a cost - in code and needn't cost too much in terms of human intervention. A technical solution is essential in a technical world. Yes, I recognise trolls can rejoin with different email addresses. You could log all IP addresses used, and probably do already, as other discussion pages make plain - see DrunkenWasps. This could get around that problem. OK, I know ways around that, too; but how many people do or would be bothered?

PS I suspect one of the reasons trolls do what they do is to get a response: I suspect you may now get many more handwritten letters from Hazlemere.

(It wasn't me!!!)

Steve Cohen
Thank you for asking opinions.
My ha'p'orth:

everyone on this forum recognises:
the first-off-the button racist : key words traveller, benefits
the peevish **** from Wendover
the silly sow from Amersham.org.uk
the planning bore(s)
the duplicate made-up names
the blog-destroyers, see above
the idée fixe knuckle-trailers in general
the BORES who 'nest' or embed and re-quote all their forum exchanges lengthily in their replies

----
I like:
the one-liner genius, erm
and many many others expressing or exchanging genuine views, on topic. Live and let live.
-

the 'ivor' column struck me as a harmless bit of fiction/confection, years ago
-
Shut the forum down is one option. That would at least get rid of the loonies.

Invite your readers to mail direct any reporter on any story. Instead of gratuitously informing yapping to the world there's been a typo in an online story. Wow.

You have some excellent reporters (happily plural). May they keep reporting on real issues. The NHS debate and that exceptionally recent juicy dog-lead murder. Truly choking.

Or, leave the unconstrained graffiti-mongers to their wall-messing.

The Bucks Free Press will then go the same way as The Bucks Examiner - editorial noddy charity rotary brave toddler fine mayor honest councillors nursery plucky mum tributes wall-to-wall, paid-for ads down, so fill it with fillers and trash and sycophancy.

Best wishes, Interesting times..

Michael, HP7
August 2012

I have published my response to Mr Cohen in the Bucks Freedom Press http://bucksfreedomp
ress.blogspot.co.uk/
2012/08/editors-thro
ne.html

Just chill out. Don't take offence if some idiot takes exception to your position, even if under a sometimes thin disguise. The net is self-policing. If someone makes a fool of himself he is the one left with egg on his face. Last time someone had a go at me he ended up inside for three years, but not for the offence of blogging.

Waddya reckon then Steve? Any of these answers worthy of a response?
I particularly liked Michael hp7's contibution.
Or have you said all you're going to on the matter?

Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

The press in general has for years, relied upon anonymous tipoffs and protected sources for stories, the real reason for that is that they protect the source from recrimination against those who might do them or their families harm, whether it be politically, financially or physically.

I have asked Mr Cohen over on Twitter if he will be responding to these comments. He usually answers any tweets.

I have asked Mr Cohen over on his latest blog (today) if he will be responding to these comments. He never answers any of my questions.

wayneo wrote:
Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

I haven't said that.
I have just remarked on the fact that Steve appears to be defending people's rights to be as offensive as they like about certain sections of the community and then says that no one can challenge what is said because that is cyber bullying.
All I ask is for everyone to be treated the same.
Go back and read my post again :))

wayneo wrote:
Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

''We are sadly moving into an age where everybody demands and expects the right of free speech, but equally shirks the responsibility that goes with it.''

Something Mr. Cohen and Iseem to agree on,



Why is this blog no longer listed in the 'most commented' section?

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote: Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

I haven't said that. I have just remarked on the fact that Steve appears to be defending people's rights to be as offensive as they like about certain sections of the community and then says that no one can challenge what is said because that is cyber bullying. All I ask is for everyone to be treated the same. Go back and read my post again :))

I did read it but I don't agree that he is condoning anything. Legitimate debate should be welcomed and encouraged, opinions are subjective and that it might be offensive to you, doesn't mean it would be offensive to another.

I say it again, surely it is better to have people's real views out in the open and open to scrutiny than to allow those views to fester into a blind hatred? Sometimes, people have such views because they feel they aren't being listened to, besides, not of those, that you and Sai-diva perceive to be 'negative' views, are held by "shaven-headed thugs".

sai-diva wrote:

wayneo wrote: Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

''We are sadly moving into an age where everybody demands and expects the right of free speech, but equally shirks the responsibility that goes with it.'' Something Mr. Cohen and Iseem to agree on, Why is this blog no longer listed in the 'most commented' section?

And what are those responsibilities he speaks of?

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote: Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

I haven't said that. I have just remarked on the fact that Steve appears to be defending people's rights to be as offensive as they like about certain sections of the community and then says that no one can challenge what is said because that is cyber bullying. All I ask is for everyone to be treated the same. Go back and read my post again :))

I did read it but I don't agree that he is condoning anything. Legitimate debate should be welcomed and encouraged, opinions are subjective and that it might be offensive to you, doesn't mean it would be offensive to another.

I say it again, surely it is better to have people's real views out in the open and open to scrutiny than to allow those views to fester into a blind hatred? Sometimes, people have such views because they feel they aren't being listened to, besides, not of those, that you and Sai-diva perceive to be 'negative' views, are held by "shaven-headed thugs".

So you think it is absolutely fine to say that all benefit claimants are a waste of space and worse?
You think it is absolutely fine for PS workers to be condemned as all being lazy.
You think it is completely okay for the asian community to be constantly under attack?
You see NOTHING wrong or unfair or judgemental about this and anyone who says this should not undergo any sort of censure?
Unbelievable Wayneo...

Oh and even that is okay if that is someone's opinion because you should be able to challenge it and have a debate.
But it does not happen because the minute you do, the personal insults start.

Great way to debate Wayneo -not :)))

Steve, thanks for your response. Will you be vetting everyone who turns up at the pub? Will Ivor be attending? That is only fair, after all.

How will you ensure it is a "friendly" debate? In the same way as you ensure everyone is "fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others" online?

What about that person who attacks every comment I make? Do you think he will turn up? Suddenly it doesn't seem like a very attractive proposition.

Or will you be buying us all a bag of crisps? That might make it worth it :-)

With all due respect Morag, another person ( not so very long ago) used to be equally vicious every time you posted a comment on Ivor's blog.
You and she now appear to be the best of friends.
Who knows..
stranger things have happened. ;))

demoness the second wrote:
With all due respect Morag, another person ( not so very long ago) used to be equally vicious every time you posted a comment on Ivor's blog. You and she now appear to be the best of friends. Who knows.. stranger things have happened. ;))

I'm sorry Demoness, I don't understand what point you are making? You are right, she has apologised and I have accepted that. I don't hold grudges.

If my current tormentor had a change of heart, then I would welcome that. However, I have no wish to meet him while he continues to behave as he does.

What I still don't understand is why Steve Cohen condones such behaviour. Tbh, I don't think he bothers (sorry, has time to.. busy, busy) to read the comments threads and has much idea of what goes on. If you use the "report this comment" link it doesn't give an overall picture of the level of intimidation.

I also find it rather insulting that the staff of the BFP don't read all the readers' comments - you would think they would want to be informed as to public opinion.

I'm shocked that wayneo asked at 3:55pm Fri 3 Aug 12 what responsibility Steve Cohen thought commenters had.

Does he need a definition of responsibility saying what accountability is, obligation to each other, perhaps even duty to be honest but certainly ethics that one owes ones fellow human beings?

I believe *everyone* that writes on here hopes that others feel at least a moral and a social responsibility to others, whatever their opinions of the other's comments.

OK, you can hate everyone and everything, or you can choose to upset as many people as you can just for the fun and the thrill of it regardless of your real opinion. However, responsibility DOES definitely come in with legal obligations, and obligations imposed by the owners of the site - like no bad language.

Does wayneo think no one has a responsibility on bfp comments section?

I'd like to hear people's views on blogging/tweeting/BF
P website commenting from a different perspective....If someone posts something that could be considered offensive, should the Police vigourously pursue that individual?

Case in point being the recent tweeter who was quite nasty about an olympic diver.

The police managed to track the anonymous tweet (actually, all tweets are anonymous really) back to the real life person who posted it.

That's not actually always as simple and easy as it sounds and presumably required the police to obtain several warrants (against Twitter, the ISP hosting the registered details and the telecomms service providing internet access - so that a physical address could be identified).

Should the Police be monitoring all social networks, websites, blogs, etc?

Morag wrote:
I have published my response to Mr Cohen in the Bucks Freedom Press http://bucksfreedomp

ress.blogspot.co.uk/

2012/08/editors-thro

ne.html

I urge anyone reading this to ignore her advertisement and let her publish her response HERE - where we are talking 'freely' on a subject of common interest - it is impossible to comment on the site mentioned - and I would not wish to - as it is completely and pre-emptively censored - the blogger called me and Steve Cohen, amongst others, animal names when she first started the blog and no one can answer her back unless she allows their post to appear - surely such a person is out of place and mistaken in taking part in a discussion about internet freedom of speech.

Let her publish her response here as well on her own blog if she wishes people to read it.

wayneo wrote:
Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

I never thought I would take the view that 'wayneo' had expressed something succinctly, clearly, unpretentiously, and completely accurately. (If I understand him correctly.)

Brian JM wrote:
Just chill out. Don't take offence if some idiot takes exception to your position, even if under a sometimes thin disguise. The net is self-policing. If someone makes a fool of himself he is the one left with egg on his face. Last time someone had a go at me he ended up inside for three years, but not for the offence of blogging.

This is a topical and helpful comment in view of the events this week outside a pizza shop in Castle Street.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
I have published my response to Mr Cohen in the Bucks Freedom Press http://bucksfreedomp


ress.blogspot.co.uk/


2012/08/editors-thro


ne.html

I urge anyone reading this to ignore her advertisement and let her publish her response HERE - where we are talking 'freely' on a subject of common interest - it is impossible to comment on the site mentioned - and I would not wish to - as it is completely and pre-emptively censored - the blogger called me and Steve Cohen, amongst others, animal names when she first started the blog and no one can answer her back unless she allows their post to appear - surely such a person is out of place and mistaken in taking part in a discussion about internet freedom of speech.

Let her publish her response here as well on her own blog if she wishes people to read it.

I should have said 'it is impossible to comment freely on the site mentioned' - the blog referred to is a warning what could happen if we allowed people to control expression on the web for supposedly benevolent motives.

Morag wrote:
Steve, thanks for your response. Will you be vetting everyone who turns up at the pub? Will Ivor be attending? That is only fair, after all.

How will you ensure it is a "friendly" debate? In the same way as you ensure everyone is "fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others" online?

What about that person who attacks every comment I make? Do you think he will turn up? Suddenly it doesn't seem like a very attractive proposition.

Or will you be buying us all a bag of crisps? That might make it worth it :-)

Does this person make untruthful comments or self-indulgently rude comments (like comparing you with farmyard animals)?

If so complain to Steve Cohen that their posts contravene T&C section 12 'statements which are offensive ... which may incite hatred or disrespect in any third party; '

wayneo wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

wayneo wrote: Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

''We are sadly moving into an age where everybody demands and expects the right of free speech, but equally shirks the responsibility that goes with it.'' Something Mr. Cohen and Iseem to agree on, Why is this blog no longer listed in the 'most commented' section?

And what are those responsibilities he speaks of?

I suppose he means the responsibility to use the right of free speech in a constructive and honest way to illuminate matters of general interest and inform people not simply to indulge oneself in diatribes or ranting. (Not sure whether or not 'ivor' always meets the Cohen Standard of Responsibility but fortunately I am safe.)

I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

Morag, you have far more important work to do elswhere than feed the animals here. Get cracking.

Says it all really..

Meow

demoness the second wrote:
I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

Lorrainej wrote:
Morag, you have far more important work to do elswhere than feed the animals here. Get cracking.

A perfect example of trolling...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

There are some web personae who are clearly made up - Ivor being one of them.
There are others who are using a name and are real people - or do you really think that I am a demi god.
Lawrence - you were cruel to Morag. I do not think she necessarily did the right thing but I can see why she did it.
And you still are - the name calling does continue.
No doubt you will start calling me names again but heigh ho :)

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

There are some web personae who are clearly made up - Ivor being one of them.
There are others who are using a name and are real people - or do you really think that I am a demi god.
Lawrence - you were cruel to Morag. I do not think she necessarily did the right thing but I can see why she did it.
And you still are - the name calling does continue.
No doubt you will start calling me names again but heigh ho :)

When did I last call you Morage or anyone else a name?

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

There are some web personae who are clearly made up - Ivor being one of them.
There are others who are using a name and are real people - or do you really think that I am a demi god.
Lawrence - you were cruel to Morag. I do not think she necessarily did the right thing but I can see why she did it.
And you still are - the name calling does continue.
No doubt you will start calling me names again but heigh ho :)

It's lucky I WAS cruel though as otherwise all the 'anger' from various girls could not be explained or justified.

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point.
I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him.
BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site,
I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely.
Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like.
So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you.
I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

There are some web personae who are clearly made up - Ivor being one of them.
There are others who are using a name and are real people - or do you really think that I am a demi god.
Lawrence - you were cruel to Morag. I do not think she necessarily did the right thing but I can see why she did it.
And you still are - the name calling does continue.
No doubt you will start calling me names again but heigh ho :)

Personal insults by anonymous individuals, particularly insults to named public individuals, is pointless and rude and can be defamatory. If ‘Demoness the second’ is really a woman called Jane Doe and I go to a bar where Jane Doe is drinking with her family and friends and shout at her ‘Jane Doe is a fat drunk’ in front of everyone then that is an insult - if I post 'Demoness the second is a fat drunk' on here and 99-100% of people don’t know who she is and the remaining 1% know it’s not true then I don't think that is really an insult - certainly not in the same way. There are terms and conditions for the internet BFP, based on the Law and on common decency, just as there are for other forms of commenting – other than that the commenting on the BFP web site ought to be the Wild West with no holds barred – anonymity ensures or should ensure that people are not genuinely insulted – when people try to ‘out’ people’s real identities then that changes.


There has been an element of authoritarian striving to control and censor here with Morag and others trying to silence ivor (who I now think IS a real person of WILDLY idiosyncratic views and beliefs – think about it - no one could invent him) and who have convinced Steve Cohen I was silencing comments because I had 'taken over' commenting on the ivor blog – after I stopped, at the insistence of Steve Cohen, putting ‘SEX!’ at the beginning of each of ivor’s blogs (purely to ‘besmirch’ their ‘purity’) and went silent, the number of posts by people other than ivor dropped rapidly to around 50% of their previous level – I can show this as I downloaded each blog and the following comments and searched them before putting the results into an Excel program. Some days ‘ivor’ was the ‘most looked at blog’ and was completely uncommented on – some people were clearly doing their best to get his blog completely ignored so that Steve Cohen would close it. (Incidentally a number of blogs of obvious merit are completely, or almost completely, ignored by commenters but continue – like ‘Bucks Bites’ or ‘Makepeace with Chess’ – so if the people who take ivor too seriously WERE to silence all comments I still don’t think ivor would disappear.) Morag is now hinting to Steve Cohen that she is a martyr who will not go to a convivial drink with him and other commenters if I am there; ‘If my current tormentor had a change of heart, then I would welcome that. However, I have no wish to meet him while he continues to behave as he does.’ Don’t worry Morag – I am NOT going to have a change of heart but you can go there without any danger of meeting me as I would not wish to inflict my unchanged heart on you.

I am one who would be more than happy to see Ivor's blog disappear because I think it no longer has any merit. It was once a pleasant, if quirky, view of the High Wycombe world but has become an outrageous venting of spleen and deliberate ignorance to create a pointless argument. The Blogger became a Troll.

In many ways, you are responsible for this Imperturbable. Shouting SEX at every opportunity and slagging him off really quite viciously caused the reaction. He has become your nemesis. were involved, but you were the leader.

However, for this to be an acceptable view to you, even if wrong, you have to accept that insulting others, even anonymous entities, online can be very hurtful and genuinely upsetting. I believe that would be true even if nobody else knows who the entity is. Everybody here is human and subject to human emotions. Even you.

....OTHERS were involved... my apologies

I would agree with you that ivor’s blog has become:

… venting … to create a pointless argument. The Blogger became a Troll.

This was the point I made some time ago when I said ‘People like ivor have to produce something interesting to read without fail on a weekly basis – this requires a mind fermenting with knowledge and thought and can only be a very difficult act to do – in ivor’s case it is impossible and he has set himself to do it three times weekly.’ (See: http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/yoursay/
opinion/blogs/983499
1.Was_it_a_morally_w
rong_thing_to_do_/).

I also would say that the weirdly idiosyncratic world of ivor should not be taken too seriously – with its fantasy Hall and grounds, yearning for gentlemen’s clubs and its bewailing of the loss of status and contentment in the past.

I don’t think I have been a leader – I kept off here for several weeks and the people who failed to post were the ones who claim I am harassing them and others - other people have badgered ivor for months for answers to questions that he refused to answer.

I can’t see why you say ‘ivor’ has been my ‘nemesis’ – according to the OED that word means ‘a person who or thing which avenges, punishes, or brings about someone's downfall; an agent of retribution’ – has ‘ivor’ REALLY been that?

Even if my comments were vicious (which I am not sure I accept – do quote some examples) I don't think I have ‘slagged him off’ unjustifiably or untruthfully. If I have then why was it that ‘Ivor’ refused to join in with ‘Morag’ and the others when they asked him to complain to Steve Cohen about me ‘harassing’ him and ‘crowding’ people off the blog and she had to get other people to do it instead of him and why was it that ivor refused to allow ‘Morag’ to post adverts for her own blog on his blog?

Putting ‘SEX!’ at the start of every blog was done to mock ivor’s ludicrous claim that references to sex ‘besmirched the purity of his blog’ and does not affect others. (I also think - and I know some other people agree with me –that it’s rather funny that a middle-aged man should be waiting breathlessly by his laptop for the blog to appear so that – before anyone else says a thing – he can post the ‘besmirching’ word first.)

It is tempting to end this by taking offence at the idea I am subject to the emotions of an ordinary human being but instead I would say it seems to me that some people here are ‘angry’ at my ‘viciousness’ as it allows them to attack me in a way that would otherwise be considered vicious.

Je suis solidaire avec la proposition que les potagers de cour avant ne sont pas le problem et qu’ils font partie de la solution au probleme.

Actually ivor is not always a troll - a lot of what he says is nostalgia for a lost world that really never was the way he imagines.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I would agree with you that ivor’s blog has become:

… venting … to create a pointless argument. The Blogger became a Troll.

This was the point I made some time ago when I said ‘People like ivor have to produce something interesting to read without fail on a weekly basis – this requires a mind fermenting with knowledge and thought and can only be a very difficult act to do – in ivor’s case it is impossible and he has set himself to do it three times weekly.’ (See: http://www.bucksfree

press.co.uk/yoursay/

opinion/blogs/983499

1.Was_it_a_morally_w

rong_thing_to_do_/).

I also would say that the weirdly idiosyncratic world of ivor should not be taken too seriously – with its fantasy Hall and grounds, yearning for gentlemen’s clubs and its bewailing of the loss of status and contentment in the past.

I don’t think I have been a leader – I kept off here for several weeks and the people who failed to post were the ones who claim I am harassing them and others - other people have badgered ivor for months for answers to questions that he refused to answer.

I can’t see why you say ‘ivor’ has been my ‘nemesis’ – according to the OED that word means ‘a person who or thing which avenges, punishes, or brings about someone's downfall; an agent of retribution’ – has ‘ivor’ REALLY been that?

Even if my comments were vicious (which I am not sure I accept – do quote some examples) I don't think I have ‘slagged him off’ unjustifiably or untruthfully. If I have then why was it that ‘Ivor’ refused to join in with ‘Morag’ and the others when they asked him to complain to Steve Cohen about me ‘harassing’ him and ‘crowding’ people off the blog and she had to get other people to do it instead of him and why was it that ivor refused to allow ‘Morag’ to post adverts for her own blog on his blog?

Putting ‘SEX!’ at the start of every blog was done to mock ivor’s ludicrous claim that references to sex ‘besmirched the purity of his blog’ and does not affect others. (I also think - and I know some other people agree with me –that it’s rather funny that a middle-aged man should be waiting breathlessly by his laptop for the blog to appear so that – before anyone else says a thing – he can post the ‘besmirching’ word first.)

It is tempting to end this by taking offence at the idea I am subject to the emotions of an ordinary human being but instead I would say it seems to me that some people here are ‘angry’ at my ‘viciousness’ as it allows them to attack me in a way that would otherwise be considered vicious.

Je suis solidaire avec la proposition que les potagers de cour avant ne sont pas le problem et qu’ils font partie de la solution au probleme.

Last para inserted in error.

I was thinking of Ivor-Nemesis as the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods). He became what none of us wanted.

I haven't kept any copies of conversations and can't be bothered to look for examples where you have been either very sharp or insulting. Perhaps I am wrong, let others decide.
I am also guilty of slagging Ivor off, I'm not saying it is wrong, only that you have done it and it, naturally, has consequences.

I rather like your French phrase, not one I knew beforehand.

I was thinking of Ivor-Nemesis as the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods). He became what none of us wanted.

I still don’t think it makes sense and neither does:

I rather like your French phrase, not one I knew beforehand.

The French phrase was put in by accident from the start of another document and refers to something completely different to the blog of ivor.

The blog by Steve Cohen is a kind of statement of Principle and Policy by the editor of a newspaper commented on by readers before Mr Cohen made a further statement in reply – I think it ought to be considered more thoroughly and I have a good mind to do that.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I would agree with you that ivor’s blog has become:

… venting … to create a pointless argument. The Blogger became a Troll.

This was the point I made some time ago when I said ‘People like ivor have to produce something interesting to read without fail on a weekly basis – this requires a mind fermenting with knowledge and thought and can only be a very difficult act to do – in ivor’s case it is impossible and he has set himself to do it three times weekly.’ (See: http://www.bucksfree

press.co.uk/yoursay/

opinion/blogs/983499

1.Was_it_a_morally_w

rong_thing_to_do_/).

I also would say that the weirdly idiosyncratic world of ivor should not be taken too seriously – with its fantasy Hall and grounds, yearning for gentlemen’s clubs and its bewailing of the loss of status and contentment in the past.

I don’t think I have been a leader – I kept off here for several weeks and the people who failed to post were the ones who claim I am harassing them and others - other people have badgered ivor for months for answers to questions that he refused to answer.

I can’t see why you say ‘ivor’ has been my ‘nemesis’ – according to the OED that word means ‘a person who or thing which avenges, punishes, or brings about someone's downfall; an agent of retribution’ – has ‘ivor’ REALLY been that?

Even if my comments were vicious (which I am not sure I accept – do quote some examples) I don't think I have ‘slagged him off’ unjustifiably or untruthfully. If I have then why was it that ‘Ivor’ refused to join in with ‘Morag’ and the others when they asked him to complain to Steve Cohen about me ‘harassing’ him and ‘crowding’ people off the blog and she had to get other people to do it instead of him and why was it that ivor refused to allow ‘Morag’ to post adverts for her own blog on his blog?

Putting ‘SEX!’ at the start of every blog was done to mock ivor’s ludicrous claim that references to sex ‘besmirched the purity of his blog’ and does not affect others. (I also think - and I know some other people agree with me –that it’s rather funny that a middle-aged man should be waiting breathlessly by his laptop for the blog to appear so that – before anyone else says a thing – he can post the ‘besmirching’ word first.)

It is tempting to end this by taking offence at the idea I am subject to the emotions of an ordinary human being but instead I would say it seems to me that some people here are ‘angry’ at my ‘viciousness’ as it allows them to attack me in a way that would otherwise be considered vicious.

Je suis solidaire avec la proposition que les potagers de cour avant ne sont pas le problem et qu’ils font partie de la solution au probleme.

It is tempting to end this by taking offence at the idea I am subject to the emotions of an ordinary human being but instead I would say it seems to me that some people here are ‘angry’ at my ‘viciousness’ as it allows them to attack me in a way that would otherwise be considered vicious.

(It also enables them to pose without justifying their words and actions, as silently-suffering martyrs to my 'misogyny'.)

To:
Above poster, with multi-aliases.
--
I'm not a shrivelled spinster virago, I just find that you are a pain in the a r s e.

Go back to the Guardian pages and let BFP readers stop whiffing your bumbling spite and snot.

Michael, HP7

Michael, HP7 wrote:
To:
Above poster, with multi-aliases.
--
I'm not a shrivelled spinster virago, I just find that you are a pain in the a r s e.

Go back to the Guardian pages and let BFP readers stop whiffing your bumbling spite and snot.

Michael, HP7

Who is that adressed to - it could refer to anybody?

(You sound like a bullying schoolgirl rather than a shrivelled spinster virago but your anonymity makes it difficult to tell.)

Michael, HP7 wrote:
To: Above poster, with multi-aliases. -- I'm not a shrivelled spinster virago, I just find that you are a pain in the a r s e. Go back to the Guardian pages and let BFP readers stop whiffing your bumbling spite and snot. Michael, HP7

Well said

Dear ‘Michael, HP7’ there are two posts by you on here – could the second one

let BFP readers stop whiffing your bumbling spite and snot.

be applied to the first one, which begins with a tirade of your pet hates:

the first-off-the button racist : key words traveller, benefits
the peevish **** from Wendover
the silly sow from Amersham.org.uk
the planning bore(s)
the duplicate made-up names
the blog-destroyers, see above
the idée fixe knuckle-trailers in general
the BORES who 'nest' or embed and re-quote all their forum exchanges lengthily in their replies

?
The first post ends a bit meaninglessly but the whole thing is clearly written in a state of high dudgeon.

I would just like to say, to anybody who is interested. It will be 3 years this Christmas, YES 3 years since I ridiculed Morag. Just over 2 years ago I followed Morag elswhere, and came to see the person she is, I very much liked the person I saw, and still do. However I didn't like the person I had become, and all because of some blog, where people behaved like thugs, and thats what I became.Fortunately, I manage, most of the time to keep away. Ivors blog was always what is was and still is a pastime, thats why I find it so humorous, I think I made this quite clear from when I began posting in October 2009. Some people however, have to try and prove they are better educated, better writers, better at getting an argument across, and some are just plain ugly. I have appologised to Morag, on several occasions, Morag being the better person has accepted that without question. I feel very fortunate to have been able to correspond with Morag, and also very humbled. Thank you Morag

Nice to see that the debate stayed on subject and steve gave us such a lovely, well reasoned response, perhaps he felt he couldn't fit one in.
Just for the record Wayneo, if you ever get to read this, the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech is that one should not incite hatred or violence against minorities, or the vulnerable.

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote: Appears to me that far from people defending the right to freedom of speech or expression, there are the same old contributors asking for less of it.

I haven't said that. I have just remarked on the fact that Steve appears to be defending people's rights to be as offensive as they like about certain sections of the community and then says that no one can challenge what is said because that is cyber bullying. All I ask is for everyone to be treated the same. Go back and read my post again :))

I did read it but I don't agree that he is condoning anything. Legitimate debate should be welcomed and encouraged, opinions are subjective and that it might be offensive to you, doesn't mean it would be offensive to another. I say it again, surely it is better to have people's real views out in the open and open to scrutiny than to allow those views to fester into a blind hatred? Sometimes, people have such views because they feel they aren't being listened to, besides, not of those, that you and Sai-diva perceive to be 'negative' views, are held by "shaven-headed thugs".

So you think it is absolutely fine to say that all benefit claimants are a waste of space and worse? You think it is absolutely fine for PS workers to be condemned as all being lazy. You think it is completely okay for the asian community to be constantly under attack? You see NOTHING wrong or unfair or judgemental about this and anyone who says this should not undergo any sort of censure? Unbelievable Wayneo...

demoness the second wrote:
So you think it is absolutely fine to say that all benefit claimants are a waste of space and worse?

Well are they? If somebody has that opinion then you can contest it or ignore it? Being wrong, isn't a crime Why would Mr Cohen or his staff have to waste their time on censoring such triviality?

You think it is absolutely fine for PS workers to be condemned as all being lazy

Are they and has that actually be claimed? see above.

You think it is completely okay for the asian community to be constantly under attack?

It depends in what context you mean 'they' and whether they are being attacked or not is subjective depending on ones point of view. Oddly enough, your point=of-view, might not be the same as others, you have the choice to argue it or ignore it.

Lastly, You seem to be complaining of others using generalisation to promote their argument by err, generalising your own.

Firm Bottom wrote:
I'm shocked that wayneo asked at 3:55pm Fri 3 Aug 12 what responsibility Steve Cohen thought commenters had. Does he need a definition of responsibility saying what accountability is, obligation to each other, perhaps even duty to be honest but certainly ethics that one owes ones fellow human beings? I believe *everyone* that writes on here hopes that others feel at least a moral and a social responsibility to others, whatever their opinions of the other's comments. OK, you can hate everyone and everything, or you can choose to upset as many people as you can just for the fun and the thrill of it regardless of your real opinion. However, responsibility DOES definitely come in with legal obligations, and obligations imposed by the owners of the site - like no bad language. Does wayneo think no one has a responsibility on bfp comments section?

Why are you shocked, there I asked a single question and so far there have been four differing responses. My Cohen's version appears to be as per the updated piece to his column.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void?

One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Sai-diva wrote:Just for the record Wayneo, if you ever get to read this, the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech is that one should not incite hatred or violence against minorities, or the vulnerable.”

Odd that, because demoness took an rather more generalised approach than you. Other than not being able to recall any post that would constitute the incitement of hatred or violence you suggest, are you indicating that incitement of hatred or violence against anybody who is not a 'minority' or 'vulnerable' (whatever that is), would be fair game then?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....".
.
So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot".
.
I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up
set.

My apologies for posting with quotes above, the remove quotes tool does not appear to be working.

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

GPN01 wrote:

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

Quite agree with that however there is a tendancy for people to claim offence on behalf of others, worse, there are those who claim to represent and interpret the views and opinions that others would be offended by.

click remove quote and still it posts with a quote!!!

wayneo wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

GPN01 wrote:

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

Quite agree with that however there is a tendancy for people to claim offence on behalf of others, worse, there are those who claim to represent and interpret the views and opinions that others would be offended by.

@Wayneo, I completely agree. There's plenty of examples across society (not just BFP!) where people have been offended on behalf of other people. I think that people who claim that something is offensive to a particular group in society, without checking with the people themselves, is actually more insulting as it suggests that people in the group can't either think for themselves or argue their own case.

wayneo wrote:
click remove quote and still it posts with a quote!!!

It's a feature....something I just discovered when I tried to do exactly what you mentioned.

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

GPN01 wrote:

Whenever I read peoples comments (either about me or someone else or their opinions), I always mentally prefix them as though the author has started with "In my opinion....". . So, if someone says "gpn01 you're an idiot", I replay it is "In my opinion gpn01 you're an idiot". . I respect that everyone has their own opinion (even if I don't respect their opinion). By working on the basis that what everyone comments is their opinion, as opposed to a fact, it's much harder to be offended/insulted/up set.

Quite agree with that however there is a tendancy for people to claim offence on behalf of others, worse, there are those who claim to represent and interpret the views and opinions that others would be offended by.

@Wayneo, I completely agree. There's plenty of examples across society (not just BFP!) where people have been offended on behalf of other people. I think that people who claim that something is offensive to a particular group in society, without checking with the people themselves, is actually more insulting as it suggests that people in the group can't either think for themselves or argue their own case.

Sometimes people from a minority group are too sensible to draw attention to themselves by complaining about disrespect and are silently satisfied if a member of the majority group articulates their misgivings on their behalf.

However - as you say - there are people who - really for reasons of their own - are willing to speak up 'on behalf' of others when others don't have any problem about something.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void?

One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

That is what I would say but it apparently < em>does< /em> insult some people so I have stopped doing it (I think) – the continuing ‘anger’ of some people on here make me inclined to think that some people on here who still claim to be hurt and insulted do so because it puts the person who is supposed to have insulted them at a disadvantage.
(I could go on about this at some length and the fact that some of the people I disagree with are women ‘proves’ I am a misogynist when one person has recruited female sympathisers to speak against me but …)

Having said all that – I don’t think I can honestly say I have felt genuinely offended by what are sometimes clearly intended as insults by other people – I just think ‘yeah I see what you’re getting at you idiot!’ and ignored it (to the best of my recollection) - because I don’t know the person who is doing it and they don’t know me. However there are people who claim to be genuinely offended by anonymous posting by me and others here.

Lawrence, would you care to name this person and tell us how they "recruited" a group of "female" sympathisers? You poor man.

Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Wayneo, one of the issues I have here is that the Bucks Free Press prides itself on being a “family” newspaper. You are obviously a strong character with forthright views and appear to be well able to look after yourself. Now, what if you knew one of your loved ones was posting on here? If they use an alias, does that mean you would be happy for them to receive personal insults because they are just a “web persona”? Imagine it was your partner, your child just learning to express their opinion, your elderly relative who isn’t able to get out much, the next door neighbour who is unwell, your mate who is suffering from depression, the bereaved colleague struggling to stay afloat, the bloke down the road who has lost his job and is on benefits? I could go on. The world is full of vulnerable people who have just as much right for their opinions to be voiced here. Unfortunately the bullies always target those they consider to be weaker.

The BFP states “Please be fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others so we can build a vibrant community in a safe online environment. You are personal (sic) liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views”. At the moment, they only react to complaints – which can be taken out of context in isolation.

Steve Cohen says “However... there is a clear line of abuse that shouldn’t be crossed. I bet all of you who post on here know exactly where that line is. But if you don’t, our terms and conditions of site use are actually quite useful in defining this.”

A. I don’t think everyone DOES know where that line is.
B. We all seem to interpret it differently.

Wayneo - I have read posts from certain individuals on the main site that are rude and insulting about people on benefits, PS workers and ethnic minorities.And they have said exactly what I quoted. I could name names but what would be the point of that?
I am not going to trawl through stories and posts to prove a point - if you are not offended that is your prerogative - but ( as Morag said) people are supposed to be courteous and respectful to the views of others. I once got into a debate with a certain individual about the unemployed - I quoted a discussion that I had heard on radio 4 that morning to support my POV and was accused of trolling and worse! If you try and reasonably disagree with this person,they just get very insulting. So now I ignore them as you suggest :)

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, would you care to name this person and tell us how they &quot;recruited" a group of "female" sympathisers? You poor man.

I checked your blog for the second time recently and it says on there that the people who complained to the webmaster at 'Bucks Banter' were all female - I didn't know that till then and I don't know this but I suspect it was a similar or the same gang who complained to Steve Cohen that I was crowding out regular posters on ivor’s blog.

And HAVE you claimed that I am a misogynist because I argue with women?

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?

Please explain.

I have completely ignored your Fem Dom blog and I think you had a hell of a cheek to ask people to go off the BFP site to your own to see your reply to Steve Cohen - you should have replied to him on here where he had posted like everyone else and where people were replying to him.

Morag

What could be more schoolgirlish than to be telling tales to Steve Cohen and the webmaster at ‘Bucks Banter’ to get me banned – and then to start your own blog where you call people names and have complete control over posting rights. (If you DO go to Steve Cohen’s proposed friendly drink I hope you start off by apologising for calling him a chicken.)

When I say ‘schoolgirlish’ and ‘schoolgirl’ I am not disrespecting the majority of sensible beautiful and studious young women, who are often the daughters of friends. I am talking about the mentality of the tale bearer and story teller and bullies at school particularly when it is carried into middle age.

PS Sorry to hear you are menopausal.

Pot, kettle, black

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, would you care to name this person and tell us how they &quot;recruited" a group of "female" sympathisers? You poor man.

I checked your blog for the second time recently and it says on there that the people who complained to the webmaster at 'Bucks Banter' were all female - I didn't know that till then and I don't know this but I suspect it was a similar or the same gang who complained to Steve Cohen that I was crowding out regular posters on ivor’s blog.

And HAVE you claimed that I am a misogynist because I argue with women?

I never complained to SC about you crowding out Ivor's blog.
In fact I cannot remember the last time I spoke to him about anything.
I did however find you offensive at times on BB - as did other females.
None of us spoke to Morag about this..
So perhaps you need to look at what you say at times and how you say it instead of coming out with nasty little digs about menopausal women and schoolgirl bullying.
I don't think any female who has disagreed with you has been derogatory about men.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?

Please explain.

I have completely ignored your Fem Dom blog and I think you had a hell of a cheek to ask people to go off the BFP site to your own to see your reply to Steve Cohen - you should have replied to him on here where he had posted like everyone else and where people were replying to him.

So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?

Please explain.

I have completely ignored your Fem Dom blog and I think you had a hell of a cheek to ask people to go off the BFP site to your own to see your reply to Steve Cohen - you should have replied to him on here where he had posted like everyone else and where people were replying to him.

So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?

I call it a Fem Dom blog because it is completely controlled by a woman who calls me and others names and who has tried to get me silenced in the past and when she could not do so went off and started the aforementioned blog also she, or her friends, apparently has issues about gender - particularly about me being misogynistic for disagreeing with her and her friends.

Just out of interest - you say 'So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?' Why have you put the word 'so' at the beginning of that question – this suggests my use of the name Fem Dom elsewhere has something to do with the contents of that post?

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?

Please explain.

I have completely ignored your Fem Dom blog and I think you had a hell of a cheek to ask people to go off the BFP site to your own to see your reply to Steve Cohen - you should have replied to him on here where he had posted like everyone else and where people were replying to him.

So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?

I call it a Fem Dom blog because it is completely controlled by a woman who calls me and others names and who has tried to get me silenced in the past and when she could not do so went off and started the aforementioned blog also she, or her friends, apparently has issues about gender - particularly about me being misogynistic for disagreeing with her and her friends.

Just out of interest - you say 'So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?' Why have you put the word 'so' at the beginning of that question – this suggests my use of the name Fem Dom elsewhere has something to do with the contents of that post?

Oh I'm sorry. I should have just said "Why do you call it a fem dom blog?" I just used the word "so" conversationally.
And to be fair.... Morag would never have felt the need to start her own blog had she not have felt she had no choice.
Other men who have posted with her have not had any issues at all -either here or on BB.
Just one man..
Therefore I think you have to ask yourself "why?"

Clever sillies

phenomenon of ‘psychological neoteny’ whereby intelligent modern people decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings.

MAN = refers to an adult human male

ADOLESCENT = please feel free to add your definition, free pint for the best answer

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, would you care to name this person and tell us how they &quot;recruited" a group of "female" sympathisers? You poor man.

I checked your blog for the second time recently and it says on there that the people who complained to the webmaster at 'Bucks Banter' were all female - I didn't know that till then and I don't know this but I suspect it was a similar or the same gang who complained to Steve Cohen that I was crowding out regular posters on ivor’s blog.

And HAVE you claimed that I am a misogynist because I argue with women?

I never complained to SC about you crowding out Ivor's blog.
In fact I cannot remember the last time I spoke to him about anything.
I did however find you offensive at times on BB - as did other females.
None of us spoke to Morag about this..
So perhaps you need to look at what you say at times and how you say it instead of coming out with nasty little digs about menopausal women and schoolgirl bullying.
I don't think any female who has disagreed with you has been derogatory about men.

I never complained to SC about you crowding out Ivor's blog.
In fact I cannot remember the last time I spoke to him about anything.

I didn’t say you did – but SC has told me a number of people had complained along those lines and this contravened the T&Cs of the BFP – this was after Morag’s and others’ unsuccessful attempt to get ivor to say he resented my postings – so it looks as if the people who complained would have been Morag and her friends who cited the T&Cs to get me shut up before ignoring the Blog of Igor themselves.

I did however find you offensive at times on BB - as did other females.

I can’t see why but anyway I have ignored it since so you don’t need to worry

None of us spoke to Morag about this..

All right then but I would be surprised if none of them had anything to do with both BB and the Fem Dom blog and you must admit it looks suspicious – this would appear to be a group of girls taking their lead from Morag a lot of the time – it’s clear now they have been swapping comments in agreement with each other on her blog.

So perhaps you need to look at what you say at times and how you say it instead of coming out with nasty little digs about menopausal women and schoolgirl bullying.

The subject of the menopause was brought up by Morag about an hour ago – and as I said earlier what could be more schoolgirlish than to be telling tales to Steve Cohen, trying to manipulate the rules and to get ivor to back them up, and the webmaster at ‘Bucks Banter’ to get me banned – and then, when that doesn’t work to plan, to start your own blog where you call people names and have complete control over posting rights.

I don't think any female who has disagreed with you has been derogatory about men.

They have been derogatory about me and then childishly dismissed responsibility for what they have said on the grounds that I am ‘offensive’ or a misogynist - I have not complained about ALL women.

More generally you’ll notice I’ve taken your word a lot here but my reply to your first point employs information I got from Steve Cohen – if I hadn’t known that then I would not have been able to reply to your point – a lot of the stuff that is so objectionable to me about Morag and the others is the secret way they do things – it is obvious from Steve Cohen’s ‘Twitter’ account that she appealed against ivor’s refusal to let her advertise her blog on ‘ivor’ but if you try and see her half of the conversation it is private – she is entitled to do this but it lends itself to secret and dishonest manipulation like trying to get me banned from sites – she and others can deny things and no one can check on it.
Also the thing about the menopause is deeply dishonest like the thing about misogyny – the only words I have said about the menopause and Morag were in reply to her about an hour ago and I said I was sorry to hear it - I am having offensive things attributed to me so people can be ‘hurt’ and ‘offended’.

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Morag wrote:
Lawrence, I am glad to hear that you have never been genuinely offended by any of the comments on here. Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored? I am a menopausal middle aged school girl so my memory isn’t as good as yours. I am sure you will find at least one somewhere.

Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?

Please explain.

I have completely ignored your Fem Dom blog and I think you had a hell of a cheek to ask people to go off the BFP site to your own to see your reply to Steve Cohen - you should have replied to him on here where he had posted like everyone else and where people were replying to him.

So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?

I call it a Fem Dom blog because it is completely controlled by a woman who calls me and others names and who has tried to get me silenced in the past and when she could not do so went off and started the aforementioned blog also she, or her friends, apparently has issues about gender - particularly about me being misogynistic for disagreeing with her and her friends.

Just out of interest - you say 'So why do you call it a Fem Dom blog?' Why have you put the word 'so' at the beginning of that question – this suggests my use of the name Fem Dom elsewhere has something to do with the contents of that post?

Oh I'm sorry. I should have just said &quot;Why do you call it a fem dom blog?" I just used the word "so" conversationally.
And to be fair.... Morag would never have felt the need to start her own blog had she not have felt she had no choice.
Other men who have posted with her have not had any issues at all -either here or on BB.
Just one man..
Therefore I think you have to ask yourself "why?"

Oh I'm sorry. I should have just said "Why do you call it a fem dom blog?" I just used the word "so" conversationally.

It WAS a bit misleading but not to worry – I accept your apology and I have answered your question - now you know why I call it that.

And to be fair.... Morag would never have felt the need to start her own blog had she not have felt she had no choice.

To be fair she had a lot of choice and she controls everything there – she could reply here and you have pointed out that she spoils her own blog with name calling – as I have said before what could be more childish than starting her own blog keeping away from the BFP and calling people names on there?

Other men who have posted with her have not had any issues at all -either here or on BB.
Just one man..

Therefore I think you have to ask yourself "why?"

She is the only woman here who has done it. I have had prolonged confrontations with other people here who have not started their own blogs. Morag called more than one man names on her blog and she has had bitter confrontations with other people notably an illiterate female name-caller – now her bosom buddy – why do Morag and her friends need to silence people so much and only talk to people who agree with them?

illiterate = unable to read and write.(I don't think so)
Intelligent, probably not
Clever sillies, never, thank god

Conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette

demoness the second wrote:
Wayneo - I have read posts from certain individuals on the main site that are rude and insulting about people on benefits, PS workers and ethnic minorities.And they have said exactly what I quoted. I could name names but what would be the point of that? I am not going to trawl through stories and posts to prove a point - if you are not offended that is your prerogative - but ( as Morag said) people are supposed to be courteous and respectful to the views of others. I once got into a debate with a certain individual about the unemployed - I quoted a discussion that I had heard on radio 4 that morning to support my POV and was accused of trolling and worse! If you try and reasonably disagree with this person,they just get very insulting. So now I ignore them as you suggest :)

Irrespective of the intention of the poster to offend or not, it's ultimately the choice of the target as to whether they choose to be offended (or not).
.
That said, I agree that we all have a responsiblity to not intentionally cause offence. Whetehr people elect to accept that responsibility is another matter!

gpn01 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
Wayneo - I have read posts from certain individuals on the main site that are rude and insulting about people on benefits, PS workers and ethnic minorities.And they have said exactly what I quoted. I could name names but what would be the point of that? I am not going to trawl through stories and posts to prove a point - if you are not offended that is your prerogative - but ( as Morag said) people are supposed to be courteous and respectful to the views of others. I once got into a debate with a certain individual about the unemployed - I quoted a discussion that I had heard on radio 4 that morning to support my POV and was accused of trolling and worse! If you try and reasonably disagree with this person,they just get very insulting. So now I ignore them as you suggest :)

Irrespective of the intention of the poster to offend or not, it's ultimately the choice of the target as to whether they choose to be offended (or not).
.
That said, I agree that we all have a responsiblity to not intentionally cause offence. Whetehr people elect to accept that responsibility is another matter!

Okay - so going on that argument, everyone is entitled to be as rude and as utterly offensive as they like because people can choose to be offended or not.
Hmm
So you are defending abuse because after all it is "free speech".
The pen can be mightier than the sword and it can be wounding. It is not a matter of "choosing" to be offended - words DO offend and words can be worse than physical attack sometimes.
So I am sorry but to defend abusive posts ( which I think you are doing) is morally wrong.
IMO of course. :)

Lawrence

I am baffled how you can say that you have “completely ignored my Fem Dom blog”. Nearly every comment I have made on the Bucks Free Press has been replied to by you making rude, ill-informed remarks about it.

I do not understand why you are so angry because I write the Bucks Freedom Press, especially seeing as you have stated above that “I don’t think I can honestly say I have felt genuinely offended by what are sometimes clearly intended as insults by other people” You also accuse me of name calling. I haven’t looked at that blog for a long time but I have just done so. I called you a Jackass, Steve Cohen a Chicken and Ivor a Dinosaur. I haven’t called anyone else names. You have called me many names, including Moron (which I never complained about). I don’t need to apologise to Steve Cohen for calling him a chicken as we have already spoken about it and he thought it was funny. I hope Ivor didn’t find being called a dinosaur offensive; it referred to his outdated views and his love of the past.

You have continually slated my blog despite having claimed to have never read any other posts. If it were honest criticism I could understand, or offence because I continued to attack you (I didn’t), but why attack just for the sake of it? What is your problem? I have the permission of Steve Cohen to carry on and post links (apart from Ivor’s blog after he complained) so what is your problem? Indeed what does it have to do with you at all?

Nor have I told tales to anyone. I left Bucks Banter after only a couple of months because you were insulting me and I did not call for you to be banned. Anything that happened after that is nothing to do with me and I had no access.

I am flattered that you think I have so many schoolgirl “friends” who are all out to get rid of poor old Lawrence. On the contrary, the only person on BB who I talk to is a man and he doesn’t do tittle tattle. I have had no contact with anyone else and they have pretty much ignored my blog.

To correct another Lawrence lie; unlike others, I have never tried to “silence” Ivor, although I have asked him not to be so negative.

Why was writing an open letter to Steve Cohen on my own blog “a hell of a cheek”? I have told you several times, Steve does not have a problem with my blog and the two way traffic is beneficial for both of us. As you will already know full well, I only wrote it because I feel intimidated on here by you. I notice you didn’t reply to my question asking you to find any post I have made on here that you have ignored. To my knowledge, you have attacked every single post I have made for the last year or so. Why? I could be wrong – I might have missed one. You just focused on “menopausal”. Another excuse for a dig. Any old excuse, eh?

You have constantly harped on about my “completely censored blog”. I have told you many times that I have never had need to delete any comment. I did it to protect myself from you. Someone where you couldn’t get at me. But you still do. Why? Are you filled with so much hate?

This is totally undignified and boring. Here’s the deal. If you are so offended (but you said you don’t get offended so I am confused) by the BFP Zoo I will delete it. I am more than happy to ignore you if you are prepared to ignore me. Nor will I incite anyone else to insult you, but then I never have, despite your insistence to the contrary.

So, are you going to leave me alone Lawrence? Or will that take away your freedom of speech? Just don’t turn on someone else instead. I’ll even let you have the last word. No doubt they won’t be pleasant. They never are.

* sorry, someone where should have read somewhere

To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’ and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like. From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist. And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us. I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have. For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases. I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty . However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you. At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?
(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).

My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is. I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.

Yours respectfully,

Edna Welthorpe (Mrs)
aka. 'Pinkie'
aka. 'Brenda'

oh, I see my comment crossed with Morag's erudite response. Don't worry, we are not the same person!

Edna x

Morag wrote:
Lawrence

I am baffled how you can say that you have “completely ignored my Fem Dom blog”. Nearly every comment I have made on the Bucks Free Press has been replied to by you making rude, ill-informed remarks about it.

I do not understand why you are so angry because I write the Bucks Freedom Press, especially seeing as you have stated above that “I don’t think I can honestly say I have felt genuinely offended by what are sometimes clearly intended as insults by other people” You also accuse me of name calling. I haven’t looked at that blog for a long time but I have just done so. I called you a Jackass, Steve Cohen a Chicken and Ivor a Dinosaur. I haven’t called anyone else names. You have called me many names, including Moron (which I never complained about). I don’t need to apologise to Steve Cohen for calling him a chicken as we have already spoken about it and he thought it was funny. I hope Ivor didn’t find being called a dinosaur offensive; it referred to his outdated views and his love of the past.

You have continually slated my blog despite having claimed to have never read any other posts. If it were honest criticism I could understand, or offence because I continued to attack you (I didn’t), but why attack just for the sake of it? What is your problem? I have the permission of Steve Cohen to carry on and post links (apart from Ivor’s blog after he complained) so what is your problem? Indeed what does it have to do with you at all?

Nor have I told tales to anyone. I left Bucks Banter after only a couple of months because you were insulting me and I did not call for you to be banned. Anything that happened after that is nothing to do with me and I had no access.

I am flattered that you think I have so many schoolgirl “friends” who are all out to get rid of poor old Lawrence. On the contrary, the only person on BB who I talk to is a man and he doesn’t do tittle tattle. I have had no contact with anyone else and they have pretty much ignored my blog.

To correct another Lawrence lie; unlike others, I have never tried to “silence” Ivor, although I have asked him not to be so negative.

Why was writing an open letter to Steve Cohen on my own blog “a hell of a cheek”? I have told you several times, Steve does not have a problem with my blog and the two way traffic is beneficial for both of us. As you will already know full well, I only wrote it because I feel intimidated on here by you. I notice you didn’t reply to my question asking you to find any post I have made on here that you have ignored. To my knowledge, you have attacked every single post I have made for the last year or so. Why? I could be wrong – I might have missed one. You just focused on “menopausal”. Another excuse for a dig. Any old excuse, eh?

You have constantly harped on about my “completely censored blog”. I have told you many times that I have never had need to delete any comment. I did it to protect myself from you. Someone where you couldn’t get at me. But you still do. Why? Are you filled with so much hate?

This is totally undignified and boring. Here’s the deal. If you are so offended (but you said you don’t get offended so I am confused) by the BFP Zoo I will delete it. I am more than happy to ignore you if you are prepared to ignore me. Nor will I incite anyone else to insult you, but then I never have, despite your insistence to the contrary.

So, are you going to leave me alone Lawrence? Or will that take away your freedom of speech? Just don’t turn on someone else instead. I’ll even let you have the last word. No doubt they won’t be pleasant. They never are. I am baffled how you can say that you have “completely ignored my Fem Dom blog”. Nearly every comment I have made on the Bucks Free Press has been replied to by you making rude, ill-informed remarks about it.
I answered that at 3.56 this afternoon. You made the incomprehensible remark that ‘Would you care to point us to any one of my posts that you have ignored?’ I have always said (quite truthfully until the last few days) that I have never looked at the ludicrously misnamed ‘Freedom’ blog. I think you know very well what I am talking about. (LOL 'rude and ill-informed' - from you!)


I do not understand why you are so angry because I write the Bucks Freedom Press, especially seeing as you have stated above that “I don’t think I can honestly say I have felt genuinely offended by what are sometimes clearly intended as insults by other people”
I don’t feel lasting anger but I think your name-calling and complacency are a disgrace to an adult and I am not the only person who thinks this.

You also accuse me of name calling. I haven’t looked at that blog for a long time but I have just done so. I called you a Jackass, Steve Cohen a Chicken and Ivor a Dinosaur. I haven’t called anyone else names.
Okay – then you see I am right.

You have called me many names, including Moron (which I never complained about).
You were hardly in a good position to when I only did it after your name-calling outburst at me and you originally made rude remarks about ‘Alberto’, ‘Biggy Dave’ and ‘Rebecca’ as well.

I don’t need to apologise to Steve Cohen for calling him a chicken as we have already spoken about it and he thought it was funny. I hope Ivor didn’t find being called a dinosaur offensive; it referred to his outdated views and his love of the past.
You shouldn’t have had to speak about it in the first place. Cohen can give you something as the editor of the BFP – you obviously haven’t checked with ivor or probably anyone else. It looks as though you are deferential to people with influence you can use. It sounds as though you were lucky about Steve Cohen or he has been diplomatic and you haven’t bothered to check with ivor – the way you didn’t bother to check about advertising your blog on his – he was going to be told after it had been announced (I gave the relevant quote for this a week or so ago).


You have continually slated my blog despite having claimed to have never read any other posts.
I don’t NEED to read it if I am only saying that you have started your own blog which can be completely controlled by you and yet is called ‘Freedom’ it and that it starts with the most conceited name-calling for me and the most cringingly fawning compliments to your ‘friends’ – that IS true isn’t? Also if you understand that then you either understand a] I have claimed to have never read your posts on here and this baffles you as you have seen the replies or b] you understand I am talking about the private Fem Dom blog – which is it?

If it were honest criticism I could understand, or offence because I continued to attack you (I didn’t), but why attack just for the sake of it?
When have I attacked you dishonestly or for the sake of it without justification? I notice you referred readers of your Fem Dom blog to a post by Richard Bacon in which he described rolls who had sent vilely abusive stuff to strangers. (See: http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-17399
027) In it he quotes:
Imagine you're the parent of a child who has died in tragic circumstances and you're reading a tribute site dedicated to their memory. Underneath the comments from friends and acquaintances, you stumble upon graphic, violent and sexual abuse from people writing under pretend names. People who their deceased child never even knew.
Are you SURE you’re not exaggerating your martyrdom?

What is your problem?
No problem. But as I have said before I don’t like immature bossy name callers. What’s your problem with posting here with everyone else?


I have the permission of Steve Cohen to carry on and post links (apart from Ivor’s blog after he complained) so what is your problem?
No problem but see my last post.

Indeed what does it have to do with you at all?
It’s being advertised on a public forum and I am a member of the public viewing that forum and I have been referred to in the blog being advertised and as I have said I think the blog is a disgrace to an adult. I also intervened because you posted an advert for your private Fem Dom blog here and refused to post along with everyone else and I urged a] people to ignore it and b] you to post here with everyone else – you could have posted it on the BFP as a reply to Steve Cohen and cross-referenced it to your own blog.


Nor have I told tales to anyone. I left Bucks Banter after only a couple of months because you were insulting me and I did not call for you to be banned. Anything that happened after that is nothing to do with me and I had no access.
Very dodgy story - we only have your word for that – what were the ‘insults’ and did you leave before or after I had left?


I am flattered that you think I have so many schoolgirl “friends” who are all out to get rid of poor old Lawrence. On the contrary, the only person on BB who I talk to is a man and he doesn’t do tittle tattle. I have had no contact with anyone else and they have pretty much ignored my blog.
Very dodgy unproveable story again.


To correct another Lawrence lie; unlike others, I have never tried to “silence” Ivor, although I have asked him not to be so negative.
Very dodgy unproveable story again – just the negativity was it?

Why was writing an open letter to Steve Cohen on my own blog “a hell of a cheek”?
It was a cheek to advertise your blog in competition to his own – whatever you say about his view – and a cheek to refuse to post with the rest of us and expect us to join you on a blog where you flatter your friends and insult people you don’t like who may be following the thread on the BFP. (I explained why I said THAT at 3.56 as well and above.)

I have told you several times, Steve does not have a problem with my blog and the two way traffic is beneficial for both of us.
If you say so.

As you will already know full well, I only wrote it because I feel intimidated on here by you.
Yeah and you called it ‘Freedom’ because you were free from me – yeah! You’re not a bully – you’re a VICTIM – in fact you’re a refugee!

I notice you didn’t reply to my question asking you to find any post I have made on here that you have ignored.
I have replied twice now but you seem to be doing honest confusion about threads on the BFP and your own private blog – see above – do a word search for ‘3.56’.

To my knowledge, you have attacked every single post I have made for the last year or so. Why? I could be wrong – I might have missed one.
I don’t know how many times you have posted on here – few and far between I would guess since you started your own private blog – I don’t know if I have replied to every one but IF I did then I could be wrong but I must have disagreed with every one.

You just focused on “menopausal”. Another excuse for a dig. Any old excuse, eh?
No Dear YOU focussed on it at 1:54pm – you said ‘I am a menopausal middle aged school girl’ - accusing women of being menopausal as we all know is a vulgar trick used by some men and you have tried to associate me with it – I said I was sorry to hear you were menopausal in reply remember? I would point out that this something easily verified – what about the stuff above where I have to rely on your word? I have explained elsewhere why I think your posts and behaviour are examples of the worst type of schoolgirl behaviour.


You have constantly harped on about my “completely censored blog”. I have told you many times that I have never had need to delete any comment. I did it to protect myself from you. Someone where you couldn’t get at me. But you still do. Why? Are you filled with so much hate?
You have NEVER told me about it or said it anywhere to my knowledge. I am not filled with hate – don’t exaggerate. I do think you are very arrogant and don’t like being disagreed with and the story that you needed somewhere to be ‘free’ from me is pathetic. You went somewhere you were in charge and showed off while being rude.


This is totally undignified and boring. Here’s the deal. If you are so offended (but you said you don’t get offended so I am confused) by the BFP Zoo I will delete it.
Leave the BFP Zoo on there – you are the Fem Dom blogger and it is yours to do with as you wish if you are still satisfied with it – I don’t mind and would be happy to see it stay so people could see how you are alternately rude and fawning.

I am more than happy to ignore you if you are prepared to ignore me. Nor will I incite anyone else to insult you, but then I never have, despite your insistence to the contrary.
You’re a bit late for that and if I disagree with what you have to say I will courteously (as ever) express my disagreement within the T&Cs of the BFP – you will still have the right to complain if I go wrong.


So, are you going to leave me alone Lawrence? Or will that take away your freedom of speech?
So that you can say whatever you like? I just answered that.

Just don’t turn on someone else instead.
Don’t be cheeky and pretend you are a victim – I just wonder who you are going to pretend to be martyred by in future.

I’ll even let you have the last word. No doubt they won’t be pleasant. They never are.
Hope you’re satisfied.

demoness the second wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
Wayneo - I have read posts from certain individuals on the main site that are rude and insulting about people on benefits, PS workers and ethnic minorities.And they have said exactly what I quoted. I could name names but what would be the point of that? I am not going to trawl through stories and posts to prove a point - if you are not offended that is your prerogative - but ( as Morag said) people are supposed to be courteous and respectful to the views of others. I once got into a debate with a certain individual about the unemployed - I quoted a discussion that I had heard on radio 4 that morning to support my POV and was accused of trolling and worse! If you try and reasonably disagree with this person,they just get very insulting. So now I ignore them as you suggest :)

Irrespective of the intention of the poster to offend or not, it's ultimately the choice of the target as to whether they choose to be offended (or not).
.
That said, I agree that we all have a responsiblity to not intentionally cause offence. Whetehr people elect to accept that responsibility is another matter!

Okay - so going on that argument, everyone is entitled to be as rude and as utterly offensive as they like because people can choose to be offended or not.
Hmm
So you are defending abuse because after all it is &quot;free speech".
The pen can be mightier than the sword and it can be wounding. It is not a matter of "choosing" to be offended - words DO offend and words can be worse than physical attack sometimes.
So I am sorry but to defend abusive posts ( which I think you are doing) is morally wrong.
IMO of course. :)

What I'm accepting is that there is a personal responsibility to not intentionally be offensive. Some people choose, however, to not behave responsibly. Whether they should or not is up to them, not me.
.
Similarly, we're all "grown up" (well, maybe not everyone!) and have enough emotional indepedence and maturity to be able to decide whether we're going to be offended by someone else's post (or not). It's not really about choosing to be offended. It's about choosing to not be offended.

OK, Morag and Imperturbable have both got that off their chests though I'm not sure if we are any closer to agreement.

My long held opinion, expressed here explicitly at times (no, Imperturbable, I don't have a copy), that the comments section is a very poor reflection of what High Wycombe, and area, society is really like and that it is a very disappointing and often an embarrassing display.

So, drop the personal and snide comments and be positive; we are all beautiful people with a lovely and wide view of our glorious environment. "How people treat you is their karma. How you react is yours".

Mind you, the thought of possibly meeting Ivor in the flesh over a pint is too terrifying; I can't do it.

Edna_Welthorpe_ wrote:
To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’ and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like. From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist. And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us. I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have. For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases. I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty . However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you. At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?
(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).

My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is. I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.

Yours respectfully,

Edna Welthorpe (Mrs)
aka. 'Pinkie'
aka. 'Brenda'Brenda - you seem obsessed with genitalia:
To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’
That was in reply to your ‘hilarious’ remarks – which I regarded as belittling toward ME:
I do wish Lawrence would hurry up and take his trousers off so we can play naughty kiss chase. Should take his mind off this blessed thing
You continue above: and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like.
The remark was What do you look like without your knickers Ena - a big pink pear I bet? and referred to pear-shapedness – NOT vaginas YOU brought up the subject of people undressing – not me. In the same blog you say:
all this is turning me on. My nethers are twitching like a frog’s gullet. I cannot wait to read what you have to post next.
Ps. Thanks for breakfast the other morning, the things you can do with an egg don’t get enough press…
I repeat this was in reply to a remark about undressing me. I would point out that you had already written a ‘hilarious’ account in Morag’s Fem Dom blog of your dirty weekend with ivor at Bourne End and I pointed out last week: (http://www.bucksfre
epress.co.uk/yoursay
/opinion/blogs/98433
96.The_London_2012_O
lympics_are_under_wa
y/) that I think Brenda … spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see: This was followed by references for three occasions on this site when you had made sexual innuendos about the male organ. The full exchange is:
Edna_Welthorpe_ says...
I am suprised a man such as yourself has never gone clay pigeon shooting, what with your sprawling estate and once grand ancestors. And perhaps I am confusing things, but didn't you once say a shotgun is Lucifer's willy?
Ivor denied this and I agreed with him saying
I don't think you described a shotgun as 'Lucifer's Willy' either - I think Brenda herself described them that way - she spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see:
You continue today:
From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist.
I call it like for like – usually it’s us blokes who are making dirty double-entendres (actually the stuff you say is hardly double entendre more like single entendre) if you are going to spend time talking about taking men’s trousers down you must expect the same thing back, however it’s lucky you misunderstood the reference to ‘pear’ as a vaginal allusion as otherwise you would have had to defend your figure instead of righteously attacking me for misogyny.

And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us.
Yes they DO don’t they – on the other hand they are useful to describe what Morag is doing and I have made it clear elsewhere on this page that I don’t have problems with girls or very young women still at school – just middle-aged female bullies who behave in middle-age like the worst type of teacher’s pet.

I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have.
I have never accused you of it – you can’t deny though that you post on Morag’s blog and I remember on one occasion you attacked me in her defence and then had the audacity to tell me not to reply as I had the time to compose replies and you were too busy!

For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases.
Okay. Nonetheless I know from Steve Cohen and from posts on the Fem Dom blog that there have been occasions when a number of people (and a poster on the Fem Dom blog has said on the Bucks Banter blog it WAS all-female) have got together to jointly make a complaint.
I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.
You said in the past that the closed comments are understandable. She says she has never yet barred a quote from her blog so where does the vitriol come from? She has insulted me and other people on her blog and I think she should contribute to the BFP blogs in the same way as other people and take her luck.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty.
Although I am VERY intelligent I strongly object to being called ‘reasonable and respectful in real life’ - the next thing is you will be calling me ‘normal’.

However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you.
I DO find your ‘xxx’ and ‘special love kisses’ and coy references to sex and calling me ‘Lawrie’ and so on a bit nauseating and I feel they are used as a form of control – why don’t you let ‘Morag’ or the illiterate berk defend themselves? I DO believe there is informal collaboration between women on the site who disagree with what I say (your posts are examples of this) however demoness and other women have expressed agreement with what I have said in the past – no I don’t think in terms of ‘axes of evil’ or ‘bands of sisters hell-bent on destroying me’.

At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?
Hmmm!
(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).
I don’t understand.
My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is.
I know how you feel Dear – I have had obnoxious comments made there to me by people who were then quoted by Morag on the Fem Dom blog, and Steve Cohen said there has been a lot of complaints that I was ‘crowding people out’ of there – I had ‘taken it over’ (quoting from memory.) Nonetheless when I kept away from it the number of posts by innocent bystanders fell by about 50% - I think the blog was being ignored deliberately in an attempt to kill it although it is already undead – sometimes it was the most looked at and completely uncommented on. (I notice ‘Tom’ went back on there for a couple of times but he seems to have disappeared – was that an example of informal collaboration with Morag?)
I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.
It didn’t seal your fate as far as I am concerned as I only read it the second time within the last few days.
http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/yoursay/
opinion/blogs/981509
3.Rain__rain__go_awa
y____/
http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/yoursay/
opinion/blogs/973925
6.Celebrating_the_Di
amond_Jubilee/

Like I said – keep off the genitalia – dirty double meanings are the boys’ job.

Edna_Welthorpe_ wrote:
oh, I see my comment crossed with Morag's erudite response. Don't worry, we are not the same person!

Edna x

You need to look up 'erudite'.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Edna_Welthorpe_ wrote:
To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’ and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like. From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist. And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us. I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have. For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases. I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty . However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you. At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?
(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).

My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is. I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.

Yours respectfully,

Edna Welthorpe (Mrs)
aka. 'Pinkie'
aka. 'Brenda'Brenda - you seem obsessed with genitalia:
To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’
That was in reply to your ‘hilarious’ remarks – which I regarded as belittling toward ME:
I do wish Lawrence would hurry up and take his trousers off so we can play naughty kiss chase. Should take his mind off this blessed thing
You continue above: and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like.
The remark was What do you look like without your knickers Ena - a big pink pear I bet? and referred to pear-shapedness – NOT vaginas YOU brought up the subject of people undressing – not me. In the same blog you say:
all this is turning me on. My nethers are twitching like a frog’s gullet. I cannot wait to read what you have to post next.
Ps. Thanks for breakfast the other morning, the things you can do with an egg don’t get enough press…
I repeat this was in reply to a remark about undressing me. I would point out that you had already written a ‘hilarious’ account in Morag’s Fem Dom blog of your dirty weekend with ivor at Bourne End and I pointed out last week: (http://www.bucksfre

epress.co.uk/yoursay

/opinion/blogs/98433

96.The_London_2012_O

lympics_are_under_wa

y/) that I think Brenda … spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see: This was followed by references for three occasions on this site when you had made sexual innuendos about the male organ. The full exchange is:
Edna_Welthorpe_ says...
I am suprised a man such as yourself has never gone clay pigeon shooting, what with your sprawling estate and once grand ancestors. And perhaps I am confusing things, but didn't you once say a shotgun is Lucifer's willy?
Ivor denied this and I agreed with him saying
I don't think you described a shotgun as 'Lucifer's Willy' either - I think Brenda herself described them that way - she spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see:
You continue today:
From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist.
I call it like for like – usually it’s us blokes who are making dirty double-entendres (actually the stuff you say is hardly double entendre more like single entendre) if you are going to spend time talking about taking men’s trousers down you must expect the same thing back, however it’s lucky you misunderstood the reference to ‘pear’ as a vaginal allusion as otherwise you would have had to defend your figure instead of righteously attacking me for misogyny.

And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us.
Yes they DO don’t they – on the other hand they are useful to describe what Morag is doing and I have made it clear elsewhere on this page that I don’t have problems with girls or very young women still at school – just middle-aged female bullies who behave in middle-age like the worst type of teacher’s pet.

I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have.
I have never accused you of it – you can’t deny though that you post on Morag’s blog and I remember on one occasion you attacked me in her defence and then had the audacity to tell me not to reply as I had the time to compose replies and you were too busy!

For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases.
Okay. Nonetheless I know from Steve Cohen and from posts on the Fem Dom blog that there have been occasions when a number of people (and a poster on the Fem Dom blog has said on the Bucks Banter blog it WAS all-female) have got together to jointly make a complaint.
I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.
You said in the past that the closed comments are understandable. She says she has never yet barred a quote from her blog so where does the vitriol come from? She has insulted me and other people on her blog and I think she should contribute to the BFP blogs in the same way as other people and take her luck.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty.
Although I am VERY intelligent I strongly object to being called ‘reasonable and respectful in real life’ - the next thing is you will be calling me ‘normal’.

However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you.
I DO find your ‘xxx’ and ‘special love kisses’ and coy references to sex and calling me ‘Lawrie’ and so on a bit nauseating and I feel they are used as a form of control – why don’t you let ‘Morag’ or the illiterate berk defend themselves? I DO believe there is informal collaboration between women on the site who disagree with what I say (your posts are examples of this) however demoness and other women have expressed agreement with what I have said in the past – no I don’t think in terms of ‘axes of evil’ or ‘bands of sisters hell-bent on destroying me’.

At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?
Hmmm!
(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).
I don’t understand.
My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is.
I know how you feel Dear – I have had obnoxious comments made there to me by people who were then quoted by Morag on the Fem Dom blog, and Steve Cohen said there has been a lot of complaints that I was ‘crowding people out’ of there – I had ‘taken it over’ (quoting from memory.) Nonetheless when I kept away from it the number of posts by innocent bystanders fell by about 50% - I think the blog was being ignored deliberately in an attempt to kill it although it is already undead – sometimes it was the most looked at and completely uncommented on. (I notice ‘Tom’ went back on there for a couple of times but he seems to have disappeared – was that an example of informal collaboration with Morag?)
I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.
It didn’t seal your fate as far as I am concerned as I only read it the second time within the last few days.
http://www.bucksfree

press.co.uk/yoursay/

opinion/blogs/981509

3.Rain__rain__go_awa

y____/
http://www.bucksfree

press.co.uk/yoursay/

opinion/blogs/973925

6.Celebrating_the_Di

amond_Jubilee/

Like I said – keep off the genitalia – dirty double meanings are the boys’ job.'Quote' facility not working.

The 'quote' facility was not working when I did the last post.

Lawrence

You describe yourself as very intelligent, what on earth are you doing arguing with middle aged schoolgirls and illiterate berks. It doesn’t say much for you. I can only assume you feel unable to argue effectively with people YOU CONSIDER are of equal or higher intelligence. I mentioned earlier clever sillies, that describes you fairly accurately.

I think you are rather agitated that Morag has gone off and done her own blog, with Steve Cohen’s blessing. Didn’t you want to write something for the BFP, but they wouldn’t pay you, I seem to recall that you said that a lot of time and effort was put in and you felt you should be rewarded financially. How can you then spend so much time posting comments on here without the financial reward, or is the reward belittling others?

Morag’s blog is much better having her decide what is printed, there are no nasty comments, it’s makes a pleasant change to smile when replying. You seem to be Mr Angry, and enjoy it. Try being pleasant, it’s far more enjoyable.

I have never known anybody spend so much time on something so unimportant, as for doing a spreadsheet, OMG. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; you may have had a very important worthwhile job, and now feel at a loss. However, now may be a good time to sit and ponder, do you not think your time could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Although your posts are no longer as vile as they were, they are still rude and offensive. I personally find you obnoxious, but that is only my opinion. I don’t find you clever, funny or entertaining. I would like to say, that on some other threads, you have made some intelligent posts. All the more reason to question your motives.

Regards

The illiterate berk

"Email me when a comment is added". It doesn't say "Email me when an essay is written". So I'm goig to leave this discussion as the time taken vs beenfit gained balance doesn't stack up. Maybe there should be a |Twitter-like limit to how long a comment can be?

gpn01 wrote:
&quot;Email me when a comment is added". It doesn't say "Email me when an essay is written". So I'm goig to leave this discussion as the time taken vs beenfit gained balance doesn't stack up. Maybe there should be a |Twitter-like limit to how long a comment can be?

Or a short attention span BFP.

Thought I'd post it again without extraneous material

Brenda - you seem obsessed with genitalia:

To inflame this situation, Lawrence, you ask for examples of your misogyny. Not so long ago, in an attempt to belittle me, you made reference to the fact that I ought to wash more in order to get ‘laid’

That was in reply to your ‘hilarious’ remarks – which I regarded as belittling toward ME:

I do wish Lawrence would hurry up and take his trousers off so we can play naughty kiss chase. Should take his mind off this blessed thing

You continue above:

and then made some facetious remarks about what my genitalia might look like.

The remark was What do you look like without your knickers Ena - a big pink pear I bet? and referred to pear-shapedness – NOT vaginas

YOU brought up the subject of people undressing – not me.

(In the same blog you say:
all this is turning me on. My nethers are twitching like a frog’s gullet. I cannot wait to read what you have to post next.
Ps. Thanks for breakfast the other morning, the things you can do with an egg don’t get enough press… )

I repeat this was in reply to a remark about undressing me. I would point out that you had already written a ‘hilarious’ account in Morag’s Fem Dom blog of your dirty weekend with ivor at Bourne End and I pointed out last week: (http://www.bucksfre


epress.co.uk/yoursay


/opinion/blogs/98433


96.The_London_2012_O


lympics_are_under_wa


y/) that

I think Brenda … spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see:

This was followed by references for three occasions on this site when you had made sexual innuendos about the male organ.

The full exchange is:
Edna_Welthorpe_ says...
I am suprised a man such as yourself has never gone clay pigeon shooting, what with your sprawling estate and once grand ancestors. And perhaps I am confusing things, but didn't you once say a shotgun is Lucifer's willy?

Ivor denied this and I agreed with him saying
I don't think you described a shotgun as 'Lucifer's Willy' either - I think Brenda herself described them that way - she spends rather a lot of time talking and, I would imagine, thinking about willies particularly your own – see:
You continue today:
From this you extrapolated the ever so-witty ‘Pinkie’ as a nickname for me and vaginal allusion. I call that misogynist.

I call it like for like – usually it’s us blokes who are making dirty double-entendres (actually the stuff you say is hardly double entendre more like single entendre) if you are going to spend time talking about taking men’s trousers down you must expect the same thing back, however it’s lucky you misunderstood the reference to ‘pear’ as a vaginal allusion as otherwise you would have had to defend your figure instead of righteously attacking me for misogyny.

And yes, actually, words like ‘Fem Dom’ and ‘schoolgirls’ do have misogynist stings in their tails – you are using our gender belittle us.

Yes they DO don’t they – on the other hand they are useful to describe what Morag is doing and I have made it clear elsewhere on this page that I don’t have problems with girls or very young women still at school – just middle-aged female bullies who behave in middle-age like the worst type of teacher’s pet.

I say ‘us’, but you credit me with far more of an involvement in some alleged axis of evil than I actually have.

I have never accused you of it – you can’t deny though that you post on Morag’s blog and I remember on one occasion you attacked me in her defence and then had the audacity to tell me not to reply as I had the time to compose replies and you were too busy!

For the record, I have never tried to get you banned or made any complaint about a comment you’ve posted, nor have I tried to influence others to do so. I have no other aliases.

Okay. Nonetheless I know from Steve Cohen and from posts on the Fem Dom blog that there have been occasions when a number of people (and a poster on the Fem Dom blog has said on the Bucks Banter blog it WAS all-female) have got together to jointly make a complaint.

I agree that Morag’s blog ought to be open comment, but as I think I have said in the past, based on the amount of vitriol she receives for simply getting up in the morning I don’t blame her for weeding them out.

You said in the past that the closed comments are understandable. She says she has never yet barred a quote from her blog so where does the vitriol come from? She has insulted me and other people on her blog and I think she should contribute to the BFP blogs in the same way as other people and take her luck.

I dare say in real life you are perfectly reasonable and respectful. I really do think you are an intelligent man with views I often find myself agreeing with and, when I disagree, I do wish the environment was conducive for debate without the fear it's going to get nasty.

Although I am VERY intelligent I strongly object to being called ‘reasonable and respectful in real life’ - the next thing is you will be calling me ‘normal’.

However, somewhere along the line you have decided to dislike me and accused me of being part of a band of sisters hell-bent on destroying you.

I DO find your ‘xxx’ and ‘special love kisses’ and coy references to sex and calling me ‘Lawrie’ and so on a bit nauseating and I feel they are used as a form of control – why don’t you let ‘Morag’ or the illiterate berk defend themselves? I DO believe there is informal collaboration between women on the site who disagree with what I say (your posts are examples of this) however demoness and other women have expressed agreement with what I have said in the past – no I don’t think in terms of ‘axes of evil’ or ‘bands of sisters hell-bent on destroying me’.

At most, you irritate me, because it seems you are spoiling for a fight all the time. Often it amuses me, other times – I wonder, what is the point?

Hmmm!

(And can I just say, a spreadsheet? Of all comments? Oy vey).
I don’t understand.

My involvement here was always intended to be an amusing pastime with Ivor. Now, I don't know what it is.

I know how you feel Dear – I have had obnoxious comments made there to me by people who were then quoted by Morag on the Fem Dom blog, and Steve Cohen said there has been a lot of complaints that I was ‘crowding people out’ of there – I had ‘taken it over’ (quoting from memory.) Nonetheless when I kept away from it the number of posts by innocent bystanders fell by about 50% - I think the blog was being ignored deliberately in an attempt to kill it although it is already undead – sometimes it was the most looked at and completely uncommented on. (I notice ‘Tom’ went back on there for a couple of times but he seems to have disappeared – was that an example of informal collaboration with Morag?)

I contribute to the 'Fem Dom' blog as and when which I think sealed my fate long ago.

It didn’t seal your fate as far as I am concerned as I only read it the second time within the last few days.


http://www.bucksfree


press.co.uk/yoursay/


opinion/blogs/981509


3.Rain__rain__go_awa


y____/
http://www.bucksfree


press.co.uk/yoursay/


opinion/blogs/973925


6.Celebrating_the_Di


amond_Jubilee/

Like I said – keep off the genitalia – dirty double meanings are the boys’ job.'Quote' facility not working.”

Obsessive–compulsi
ve personality disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.

Pedantry can also be an indication of specific developmental disorders. In particular, persons with Asperger's Syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.

Lorrainej wrote:
Obsessive–compulsi

ve personality disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.

Pedantry can also be an indication of specific developmental disorders. In particular, persons with Asperger's Syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.

What is your point here Lorraine?

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote: Obsessive–compulsi ve personality disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules. Pedantry can also be an indication of specific developmental disorders. In particular, persons with Asperger's Syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.

What is your point here Lorraine?

Does there have to be a point

Have you read Morag's blog today.

bucksfreedompress.bl
ogspot.co.uk/

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
Obsessive–compulsi


ve personality disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.

Pedantry can also be an indication of specific developmental disorders. In particular, persons with Asperger's Syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.

What is your point here Lorraine?

I just wondered why you felt it necessary to make a post about mental conditions on a thread about freedom of speech.
Seemed a bit random if you get my drift..

Its a random place, with random people, saying random things, I thought I would be random if you get my drift.

well I really can't be bothered to read most of what has been written since I last read the comments about 5 days ago!
.
However, I must ask Morag why she didn't post my comment on her blog? It wasn't rude or offensive, it was simply a remark with a question attached.
.
As Morag didn't have the courtesy to reply or post the comment I now no longer read her blogs, which is a shame as they had the potential to be entertaining and informative. I also no longer read Ivor's blog, the only blog that I now read is Will Lacey's and sadly they are intermittent although well worth waiting for.

Mel

I am totally bewildered. What comment? When? Was this recently or in the past? I can assure you that I have published every single comment I have received (apart from one rather drunken suggestion in the early hours some time ago and I really don't think that was you:-)

I have the facility to look at every comment that is published, awaiting moderation or spam. There is nothing there I haven't dealt with.

What a pity you didn't follow it up. I don't doubt that you posted it but please believe me when I say that it never arrived. After all, why would I just ignore you?

You were kind to me on BB so why would I deliberately slight you? *exasperated sigh*

LorraineJ writes the best posts on here - thank-you, LorraineJ

Firm Bottom wrote:
LorraineJ writes the best posts on here - thank-you, LorraineJ

Glad your bottom is firm - firm fundamentally but not so firm mentally apparently.

Morag it was about a month after you first started your blog, possibly on your 3rd blog. I asked you a specific question and also made a comment, not unreasonable or offensive, to which you never replied or posted and if memory serves (but I'm past menopausal so may have forgotten) I think I asked you again in another comment about a week/10 days later and when that too wasn't posted and in light of one person who was posting I then decided not to bother.
.
It's so long ago I've forgotten most of what I said (although not all) and unfortunately I have no interest in rekindling our online friendship. No offence to you, I wish you all the best with your blog but my life is pleasantly uncomplicated without one of the the friends that you have recently cultivated.

I can only apologise and assure you again that I never received the comment(s). I would have published them if I had.

Thank you for your good wishes and I wish you well too. I agree that it is best that we don't re-kindle our online friendship if you are unhappy with the company I keep. It is a shame that you feel that way.

Rather ironical that all this has now come out in the open when I have been accused of inciting the BB ladies to gang up on one unfortunate soul. This has been a very illuminating day.

Melanie1 wrote:
Morag it was about a month after you first started your blog, possibly on your 3rd blog. I asked you a specific question and also made a comment, not unreasonable or offensive, to which you never replied or posted and if memory serves (but I'm past menopausal so may have forgotten) I think I asked you again in another comment about a week/10 days later and when that too wasn't posted and in light of one person who was posting I then decided not to bother.
.
It's so long ago I've forgotten most of what I said (although not all) and unfortunately I have no interest in rekindling our online friendship. No offence to you, I wish you all the best with your blog but my life is pleasantly uncomplicated without one of the the friends that you have recently cultivated.

Dear Melanie you say

'I'm past menopausal so may have forgotten'

.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding things but in the nicest possible way may I say I hope this is not directed at me as it was another unfortunate soul who first mentioned her reproductive state in a post directed to me on here (and I replied sympathetically to her).

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Firm Bottom wrote:
LorraineJ writes the best posts on here - thank-you, LorraineJ

Glad your bottom is firm - firm fundamentally but not so firm mentally apparently.

There is nothing wrong with my fundament!

Firm Bottom wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Firm Bottom wrote:
LorraineJ writes the best posts on here - thank-you, LorraineJ

Glad your bottom is firm - firm fundamentally but not so firm mentally apparently.

There is nothing wrong with my fundament!

That's what I said - that part of you at least does not suffer from infirmity.

I have also attempted to post on Morag's blog, as anonymous, but it wasn't published.
It was a simple question/suggestion that her recent post in response to this blog, when first published, would be better posted here...

Maybe Morag's blog would be better if it operated more like the BFP blogs, by allowing all comments at first, but then remove any that are deemed offensive etc.

Alberto The Great wrote:
I have also attempted to post on Morag's blog, as anonymous, but it wasn't published. It was a simple question/suggestion that her recent post in response to this blog, when first published, would be better posted here... Maybe Morag's blog would be better if it operated more like the BFP blogs, by allowing all comments at first, but then remove any that are deemed offensive etc.

Not sure if the response was yours, but there is a post dated 3rd Aug, check and see

Yes, I see it now... Mine was the 9:42 post.

It has always been there, because Demoness commented that hers was the first anonymous one, and that was on the 4th also.

Alberto, Sorry for the delay with your post. It arrived on the site over 24 hrs after the time of your submitting it. I published it as soon as it arrived.

For the record, I am notified on my mobile when a comment arrives and I just read and click "publish" so it is pretty instant.

There is obviously a problem with Blogger. The new website will hopefully work much better and Edna is trying to persuade me to have an unmoderated forum. Yikes!

I had been unaware of any problems
with commenting until now and thought it was fine because it meant anyone with ill intent didn't even bother so there were none of the personal insults you see on here.

I need to think and I better get on with the new site! Anyway this isn't the place to discuss it and I apologise to everyone this doesn't concern.

For those that ARE interested, see you over at http://www.bucksfree
dompress.blogspot.co
.uk/

Hi Morag
It is a tricky one. I would say have a go at instant comments but if people cannot respect each other and do get abusive then you are well within your rights to remove their comments,
Otherwise you could make it completely into a forum where people have to join to post.

Hello Demoness

I am writing a new blog post in response to your comment above. Will be published later.

wayneo wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.

I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.

I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.

Sai-diva wrote:Just for the record Wayneo, if you ever get to read this, the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech is that one should not incite hatred or violence against minorities, or the vulnerable.”

Odd that, because demoness took an rather more generalised approach than you. Other than not being able to recall any post that would constitute the incitement of hatred or violence you suggest, are you indicating that incitement of hatred or violence against anybody who is not a 'minority' or 'vulnerable' (whatever that is), would be fair game then?

Fair point, maybe I should have said incitement of hatred or violence.End of.
There have been some very hateful, hurtful remarks on here, some posters are worse than other.Those groups that have been singled out have been gays, travellers, single mums and those in reciept of benefits. haven't seen many examples of them inciting hatred, although they may exist, they are very much in the minority. Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities.

Alberto The Great wrote:
I have also attempted to post on Morag's blog, as anonymous, but it wasn't published.
It was a simple question/suggestion that her recent post in response to this blog, when first published, would be better posted here...

Maybe Morag's blog would be better if it operated more like the BFP blogs, by allowing all comments at first, but then remove any that are deemed offensive etc.

Then it look as if Morag was lying when she said that she had never suppressed a post.

Alberto The Great wrote:
Yes, I see it now... Mine was the 9:42 post.

Oh - what Alberto says doesn't prove it.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Alberto The Great wrote:
I have also attempted to post on Morag's blog, as anonymous, but it wasn't published.
It was a simple question/suggestion that her recent post in response to this blog, when first published, would be better posted here...

Maybe Morag's blog would be better if it operated more like the BFP blogs, by allowing all comments at first, but then remove any that are deemed offensive etc.

Then it look as if Morag was lying when she said that she had never suppressed a post.

I was wrong - see next post.

sai-diva wrote:
wayneo wrote:
wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote: demoness the second wrote: I'm really sorry Morag but Lawrence has a point. I am not going to condone what he has done with the name calling etc and I am not going to defend him. BUT starting a website of your own and making nasty little digs and equally as horrible name calling is not the answer in my opinion.To moderate every single comment as well is very controlling and I do not think you can say anything about free speech when you do not allow it on your site, I have been the subject of a spoof account on Twitter - it is one of the cruellest things you can do to someone. I actually did get the police involved and the activity was monitored closely. Your new BFF is as guilty as Lawrence where name calling and snide remarks are concerned, I am no angel but I stopped when I realised what it was making me look like. So I am with Lawrence here - your blog could have been great but instead you use it to get at other people who have upset you. I personally think you are better than that.I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped.ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:I have very rarely called people names -I took the view I was 'insulting' a web persona - I do not recall doing it since it became clear it was causing offence when I stopped. I think that's an interesting view. I'm sure many of us have on occasion, taken comments personally while using a 'web persona' or alias; unlike with using real names, does on balance, having the right to an anomynity, mean in turn that such a claims of injury or embarassment after having been insulted are subsequently null and void? One could argue, that it is not the person that is being insulted, but that of the web persona.Sai-diva wrote:Just for the record Wayneo, if you ever get to read this, the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech is that one should not incite hatred or violence against minorities, or the vulnerable.”


Odd that, because demoness took an rather more generalised approach than you. Other than not being able to recall any post that would constitute the incitement of hatred or violence you suggest, are you indicating that incitement of hatred or violence against anybody who is not a 'minority' or 'vulnerable' (whatever that is), would be fair game then?Fair point, maybe I should have said incitement of hatred or violence.End of.
There have been some very hateful, hurtful remarks on here, some posters are worse than other.Those groups that have been singled out have been gays, travellers, single mums and those in reciept of benefits. haven't seen many examples of them inciting hatred, although they may exist, they are very much in the minority. Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities.sai-diva wrote:
Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities.
What about those 'minorities' like the relative of mine, who happens to be gay but doesn't agree with gays being able to Marry?, Are you standing up for her opinion too or do you presume that ALL homosexuals agree with YOUR opinion? What about the immigrant, who agrees that there should be a cap on immigration (there are many who do hold such a view)? Does their opinion not matter because YOU happen to not agree with them? It's odd that those who cast and label others as being bigoted, would be so narrow-minded and err,bigoted, to suggest that just because one fits within the descriptive term of being a 'minority' that they all subsequently have the same opinions as each other, even worse, are those who lump people into such groups, feign offence on their behalf then proclaim to speak for them all.

You haven't seen many examples of "them "inciting hatred although they may exist"??? So might little green men but as with the generalisation and accusation at the end of your text, unless you can actually substantiate that upon which you comment, then much of what you have previously written is diluted to the effect of being groundless opinion and mere supposition. Why say it at all unless it's to either sub-conciously or even purposely give some weight to your opinion.

As for "hateful and hurtful comments", You only have to look at the comments made against Mr Malif, who took a considerable amount of vitriol and spite, merely because his comments had been miscontrued by the hue-and-cry of the self-styled righteous, those like me, who dared to not submit to the witchunt, but instead showed and highlighted where his words were clearly misconstrued, were accused of the same. From my perspective, such words are meanlingless tripe, they don't mean anything unless they have truth behind them, unfortunately for Mr Maliff and others like him, the self-righteous wanted his 'hmmer' him, teach him a lesson and make and example of what happens to those who don't share the 'populist' opinion and they weren't going to stop or listen to any reason until they got it, shame, because had they of confronted there opponents directly, they may have understood his reasoning and he in turn theirs.

WTF?????

]sai-diva wrote:

Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities.

What about those 'minorities' like the relative of mine, who happens to be gay but doesn't agree with gays being able to Marry?, Are you standing up for her opinion too or do you presume that ALL homosexuals agree with YOUR opinion? What about the immigrant, who agrees that there should be a cap on immigration (there are many who do hold such a view)? Does their opinion not matter because YOU happen to not agree with them? It's odd that those who cast and label others as being bigoted, would be so narrow-minded and err,bigoted, to suggest that just because one fits within the descriptive term of being a 'minority' that they all subsequently have the same opinions as each other, even worse, are those who lump people into such groups, feign offence on their behalf then proclaim to speak for them all.

You haven't seen many examples of "them "inciting hatred although they may exist"??? So might little green men but as with the generalisation and accusation at the end of your text, unless you can actually substantiate that upon which you comment, then much of what you have previously written is diluted to the effect of being groundless opinion and mere supposition. Why say it at all unless it's to either sub-conciously or even purposely give some weight to your opinion.

As for "hateful and hurtful comments", You only have to look at the comments made against Mr Malif, who took a considerable amount of vitriol and spite, merely because his comments had been miscontrued by the hue-and-cry of the self-styled righteous, those like me, who dared to not submit to the witchunt, but instead showed and highlighted where his words were clearly misconstrued, were accused of the same. From my perspective, such words are meanlingless tripe, they don't mean anything unless they have truth behind them, unfortunately for Mr Maliff and others like him, the self-righteous wanted his 'hmmer' him, teach him a lesson and make and example of what happens to those who don't share the 'populist' opinion and they weren't going to stop or listen to any reason until they got it, shame, because had they of confronted there opponents directly, they may have understood his reasoning and he in turn theirs.

Not quite Wayneo. Malliff's offence was to speak offensively about a section of the community when he was in public office. The only reason he was not admonished further is that apparently this was not done in public time, which seems to most observers a thin excuse for effectively letting him off. Nothing to do with free speech.

Brian JM wrote:
Not quite Wayneo. Malliff's offence was to speak offensively about a section of the community when he was in public office. The only reason he was not admonished further is that apparently this was not done in public time, which seems to most observers a thin excuse for effectively letting him off. Nothing to do with free speech.

Oh it is exactly that Brian JM, , whether he was 'offensive' or not depends on ones opinion doesn't it?

There was not a case to answer because the comment was made in his own time, subsequently, no further investigation or action needed to be considered as the code of conduct was not in effect. The decision to not take it further might not be to your liking but there you go, that's life isn't it? You say "which seems to most observers a thin excuse for effectively letting him off", "seems", has nothing to do with it and means that there is no factual basis for casting such an assertion, I would be interested as to how you came to the conclusion that MOST observers believe he was let off, how did you take a straw poll or is that another assumption?

Incidentally, as a public official, why do you also presume that his opinion isn't in tune with a large section of the public?

Wayneo this is a silly post - stop attacking Aunt Sallies - surely when sai-diva says ‘Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities’ she is referring to one or two people whom we immediately recognise, and who post on here doing exactly what she says, and the rights of your relations and other ideally-devised minorities like immigrants who want a cap on immigration (yes I know they exist) don’t come into it.


Why do you suspect sai-diva of ‘(presuming) that ALL homosexuals agree with YOUR opinion?’ Why do you suspect her of dismissing the view of ‘the immigrant, who agrees that there should be a cap on immigration (there are many who do hold such a view)?’ Why do you assume that to her ‘their opinion not matter because YOU happen to not agree with them’?


The minority group members you speak of obviously do exist and are people obviously at ease with those aspects of the system and do not require defending from bigots of the sort sai-diva refers to.


Why do you assume that sai-diva believes ‘that just because one fits within the descriptive term of being a 'minority' that they all subsequently have the same opinions as each other’?


The people who you attribute these beliefs to are Aunt Sallies to attack for over-simplified views they do not possess – sai diva’s criticism are aimed at those who DO lump together all members of minority groups as parasitic and anti-social or worse.


Are people who share ideals of tolerance and goodwill not to speak on behalf of minorities under attack in case they are accused of lumping them into an amorphous crowd in order to ‘… feign offence on their behalf then proclaim to speak for them all’?

This whole post is based on a lot of unproveable assumptions about sai-diva and the sort of people who agree with her.

The only thing you left out was the cringing phrase 'politically correct'.

Blimey Wayneo, concede a point to you and your arguments become all the more forceful.
I'm happy that you have a relation who is gay, who doesn't agree with gay marriage, but to me this isn't just a 'gay' question, it's about treating all humanity equally. It surprises me that people are keen to get married in church, but as one person put it, 'I want the right to get married just so I can not do so if I wish'. Just like any person then really?
If you don't think that someone standing shouting that all gays are sinners is at the very least offensive and at the worst inciting hatred then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.
As I have said before I have been subject to some very nasty homophobic bullying in the past, and there were times when language like that would have broken me. I'm glad you are strong enough to be able to ignore language that you don't like but I assume (and I may be wrong here) that you have never been in the position of a vulnerable minority.
Would you be happy walking past someone preaching that with your gay relative?would you be happy walking past a bnp protest with a black or Asian friend? See? freedom of speech does come with restrictions and responsibilities.
Councillor Mallif himself admitted that his words were offensive, that in itself was enough to warrant the responses he got.But we've argued that one to death eh?
I think that it's up to you to show that the minorities cause offense, I made that point to illustrate that most of the nastyness comes from the people who feel them selves to be in the majority, it's that sense of security that makes them brave. One in particular who believed that travellers should be buried in a pit. Acceptable language?Should he/she moderate their language.Is it ok to 'pull them up' on something that one finds offensive?
Of course I don't presume that I speak for the majority of any minority(!?), I speak from personal experience, from shared conversations, and information gleaned from internet, papers and radio.
How does anyone know that any one agrees with their opinion? Is freedom of speech the right to say what you like about who you like, cause offense and hurt, with no fear of retribution?

Rahila K wrote...
4:03pm Fri 10 Aug 12

Wayneo this is a silly post - stop attacking Aunt Sallies - surely when sai-diva says ‘Most of the bile comes from those who attack those defending the rights of these minorities’ she is referring to one or two people whom we immediately recognise, and who post on here doing exactly what she says, and the rights of your relations and other ideally-devised minorities like immigrants who want a cap on immigration (yes I know they exist) don’t come into it
I don't know why you presume that I would know the "one or two people whom 'we' immediately recognise", besides, if they were immediately recognisable, you would know whether there was one or two, wouldn't you? :-)

and the rights of your relations and other ideally-devised minorities like immigrants who want a cap on immigration (yes I know they exist) don’t come into it

Of course they come into it, sai-diva is claiming to stand up for and speak on behalf of 'minorities', by speaking for them as an entity, she is wrongly making the assumption that a) all people who are categorised in such a way, have the same opinions as him/her, I very much doubt that they do.

The minority group members you speak of obviously do exist and are people obviously at ease with those aspects of the system and do not require defending from bigots of the sort sai-diva refers to
Then one cannot cannot speak on behalf of a minority group as a single entitity.

Why do you assume that sai-diva believes ‘that just because one fits within the descriptive term of being a 'minority' that they all subsequently have the same opinions as each other’?
When one speaks on behalf of a group of people they speak for the whole group don't they?

The people who you attribute these beliefs to are Aunt Sallies to attack for over-simplified views they do not possess – sai diva’s criticism are aimed at those who DO lump together all members of minority groups as parasitic and anti-social or worse By classifying people into being a minority group in the first place, one already is "lumping all members together". As for over-simplified views, I see the same generalisations and assumptions on both sides.
Are people who share ideals of tolerance and goodwill not to speak on behalf of minorities under attack in case they are accused of lumping them into an amorphous crowd in order to ‘… feign offence on their behalf then proclaim to speak for them all’?
If one classifies a group of people then proceeds to speak on their behalf (irrespective of their personal opinions or beliefs), then one is as guilty of making a collective assumption about what the individuals of that group believe, do or have done; there's but a waif of difference between those who you claim to be 'defending' them from.


This whole post is based on a lot of unproveable assumptions about sai-diva and the sort of people who agree with her
No it's not, its in direct response to their own comments.

*wonders when Sai Diva became a lady.... *

sai-diva says...
4:26pm Fri 10 Aug 12

I'm happy that you have a relation who is gay, who doesn't agree with gay marriage, but to me this isn't just a 'gay' question, it's about treating all humanity equally

If it is equality that you yearn for, then why do you yourself classify individuals into groups of minorities?

If you don't think that someone standing shouting that all gays are sinners is at the very least offensive and at the worst inciting hatred then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree

Are they sinners? I expect it depends on what scripture one reads or what one believes. Apparently I am a sinner because I don't believe, that's fine by me because I don't want to be a part of that club anyway, even if I did, I would be a little hypocritical in joining or being part of something that I do not agree with or conform to.

As I have said before I have been subject to some very nasty homophobic bullying in the past, and there were times when language like that would have broken me

So you were bullied but did you not ask yourself or find out why people (rather than person), were bullying you? Are you able to elaborate? so that people can either agree, yes that incident/s was bad and you didn't deserve that, or whether they can challenge you and say, well, actually I don't think you were bullied because? I'm puzzled that having been bullied, you now want to put others in fear of retribution because they share certain opinions about groups of people?

Would you be happy walking past someone preaching that with your gay relative?

Of course I would, I would get to hear him claim that I, (as an atheist) would likely burn in hell, I might also learn something of why the man believes so passionately about his religion that he feels he needs preach to a wider public; it's those that we don't hear, cannot challenge but who would resort to violence that I would be concerned about.

would you be happy walking past a bnp protest with a black or Asian friend?

I expect so, I guess it depends on how they were protesting, why do you ask?,

See? freedom of speech does come with restrictions and responsibilities

Freedom of speech is either a freedom to do something or not at all, let's stop pretending that we have such a freedom shall we?

One in particular who believed that travellers should be buried in a pit. Acceptable language?Should he/she moderate their language.Is it ok to 'pull them up' on something that one finds offensive

Did you ask them why they believed that "travellers should be buried in a pit" or did you just tell them that they should moderate their language because you happen to find it offensive? challenging and telling are two different things.

How does anyone know that any one agrees with their opinion? Is freedom of speech the right to say what you like about who you like, cause offense and hurt, with no fear of retribution?”

Do you believe you're independently minded enough or even the right person to decide how to dispense that fear and retribution? Ironically, isn't fear and retribution for not conforming something that Reverend Simpson preaches about?

demoness the second wrote:
*wonders when Sai Diva became a lady.... *

Latin dīva goddess, female divinity, feminine of dīvus divine, god, deity

For information:
About this contributor:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/discussion/use
r/impeturbablelawren
ce

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

Latest comments made
15 December 2009 12:24PM
--
end quote
-------
Comment:

See him 'on the lines' soon? Wind-up merchant. Put a beloved dictionary on his beloved damp pillow, after disconnecting his joystick.

And goodnight from all of us as you await your chosen destiny (do check your platform)#

Recap - Guardian profile
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/discussion/use
r/impeturbablelawren
ce

Hobby:
Likes to mess up the local newspaper BFP - Bucks Free Press site.
--------------------
---
Could he PLEASE do the decent thing, off-peak? Railway rendez-vous?
--
One more jokey middle aged batchelor gone from our cherish'd midst.

Michael, HP7 wrote:
For information:
About this contributor:
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

Latest comments made
15 December 2009 12:24PM
--
end quote
-------
Comment:

See him 'on the lines' soon? Wind-up merchant. Put a beloved dictionary on his beloved damp pillow, after disconnecting his joystick.

And goodnight from all of us as you await your chosen destiny (do check your platform)#

Recap - Guardian profile
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

Hobby:
Likes to mess up the local newspaper BFP - Bucks Free Press site.
--------------------

---
Could he PLEASE do the decent thing, off-peak? Railway rendez-vous?
--
One more jokey middle aged batchelor gone from our cherish'd midst.

I'll follow you.

Tell us something about yourself now.

(Thought so - nothing to tell.)

Michael, HP7 wrote:
For information:
About this contributor:
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

Latest comments made
15 December 2009 12:24PM
--
end quote
-------
Comment:

See him 'on the lines' soon? Wind-up merchant. Put a beloved dictionary on his beloved damp pillow, after disconnecting his joystick.

And goodnight from all of us as you await your chosen destiny (do check your platform)#

Recap - Guardian profile
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

Hobby:
Likes to mess up the local newspaper BFP - Bucks Free Press site.
--------------------

---
Could he PLEASE do the decent thing, off-peak? Railway rendez-vous?
--
One more jokey middle aged batchelor gone from our cherish'd midst.

Didn't they tell you how to spell 'bachelor' at Wye Valley Secondary Modern School Michael?

Wye Valley Secondary Modern School
An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs?
Profile
Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

source:
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use
r/impeturbablelawren
ce

-----

Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion & comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012

Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so?

Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public.

Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks"

Michael, HP7 wrote:
Wye Valley Secondary Modern School
An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs?
Profile
Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

source:
http://www.guardian.


co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

-----

Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012

Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so?

Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public.

Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes.

I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

ep·i·thet   /ˈɛpəˌθɛt/ Show Spelled noun
1. any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality:
2. a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like, as “man's best friend” for “dog.”
3. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.
---

You are firmly in category 3.
judging from your own profile in the Guardian, and your always-spoiling correspondence here.
Do check train times to avoid disruption to anyone other than:

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use
r/ impeturbablelawrence

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote:
Wye Valley Secondary Modern School
An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs?
Profile
Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

source:
http://www.guardian.



co.uk/discussion/use


r/impeturbablelawren


ce

-----

Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012

Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so?

Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public.

Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes.

I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling?

'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable'

as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

Tell us something about yourself now.

(Thought so - nothing to tell.)”

Michael, HP7 wrote:
ep·i·thet   /ˈɛpəˌθɛt/ Show Spelled noun
1. any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality:
2. a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like, as “man's best friend” for “dog.”
3. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.
---

You are firmly in category 3.
judging from your own profile in the Guardian, and your always-spoiling correspondence here.
Do check train times to avoid disruption to anyone other than:

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

http://www.guardian.


co.uk/discussion/use

r/ impeturbablelawrence

I don’t know where you got your definitions from - according to the OED - which as an educated Englishman I always employ - epithet means ‘a. An adjective indicating some quality or attribute which the speaker or writer regards as characteristic of the person or thing described.’ An adjective it describes as ‘a.Grammar. A word or lexical unit which designates an attribute and qualifies a noun (or pronoun) so as to describe it more fully; (with the) the category of such words.’


In other words epithet is what used to be called years in junior school ‘a DESCRIBING word Michael’. You have used the word epithet without knowing what it meant – if you were referring to ‘crazies’ as an epithet then that is a plural noun. (‘A noun is a NAMING word Michael’.)


Number three (words, phrases, or expressions) ‘used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.’ – this seems to describe almost everything you post.


I will leave it to others after looking at your posts on this page and elsewhere to decide which of us is an angry troll.

'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.'
Lawrence and all its pseudonyms:
very bad-jokey

supercraig wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote:
Wye Valley Secondary Modern School
An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs?
Profile
Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.

source:
http://www.guardian.




co.uk/discussion/use



r/impeturbablelawren



ce

-----

Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012

Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so?

Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public.

Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like
Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.

Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes.

I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling?

'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable'

as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

I am now, and have been for many years, aware that there are two letter ‘R’s in ‘imperturbable’.

It was a deliberate misspelling some years ago - I used to use it on a French language website and in French they spell imperturbable that way – I have altered the spellchecker on here to accept it.

Michael, HP7 wrote:
'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.'
Lawrence and all its pseudonyms:
very bad-jokey

I will leave it to others after looking at your posts on this page and elsewhere to decide which of us is an angry troll.”

I post here maybe once a month.
angry troll is not in my vocabulary.
You meanwhile are poisoning the BFP comment pages daily.
Despite being:
'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.'
Lawrence and all its pseudonyms:
very bad-jokey

Try 'Comment is Free' on the Guardian. Sister soul there at
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

You foul up the wall here, quite a lot, and rather often,
Mr 'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature' ...

Nurse!

Michael, HP7 wrote:
I post here maybe once a month.
angry troll is not in my vocabulary.
You meanwhile are poisoning the BFP comment pages daily.
Despite being:
'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.'
Lawrence and all its pseudonyms:
very bad-jokey

Try 'Comment is Free' on the Guardian. Sister soul there at
http://www.guardian.


co.uk/discussion/use


r/impeturbablelawren


ce

You foul up the wall here, quite a lot, and rather often,
Mr 'Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature' ...

Nurse!

It may not be in your vocabulary but you seem to have the thing itself well-mastered:

let BFP readers stop whiffing your bumbling spite and snot.

You must have spent a lot of time being angry while you thought of those last four words. (Thinks is he angry at my spite and snot or just the poor jokes?)

… the first-off-the button racist : key words traveller, benefits
the peevish **** from Wendover
the silly sow from Amersham.org.uk
the planning bore(s)
the duplicate made-up names
the blog-destroyers, see above
the idée fixe knuckle-trailers in general
the BORES who 'nest' or embed and re-quote all their forum exchanges lengthily in their replies

This is just on this page – there are similar fulminations elsewhere - you may only come here once a month but it consists entirely of vicious wall-fouling.

I think I’ve wasted enough time on someone like you Mr Angry – sorry you don’t like my jokes – don’t look at them. ‘I will leave it to others after looking at your posts on this page and elsewhere to decide which of us is an angry troll.’

(Oh and don’t quote my Guardian mini-biog again you STILL haven’t told us anything about yourself – although what you have said gives a good indication of your kind of mentality.)

---Guardian mini-biog---:
Profile
Real name: Lawrence
Location: South Bucks
About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and
nature. Jokey.
source:
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren

ce

Hobby: narcissist

supercraig wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote: Wye Valley Secondary Modern School An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs? Profile Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. source: http://www.guardian. co.uk/discussion/use r/impeturbablelawren ce ----- Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012 Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so? Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public. Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes. I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling? 'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable' as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

If anybody has a 'beef' with Lawrence I have that beef. He has called 'me' (wayneo) amongst other things, a clown, untruthful etc etc. He has defended his point-of-view (especially with grammar schools), coherently and intelligently and along with considerable research. I dont go much on the multi alias stuff but if one uses an alias then why shouldn't one use a multiple alias (besides, clyde the police horse, I find funny)? He picks me up for my grammar and spelling regularly (with good reason i might add) and while the first inclination is to be offended, on the contrary, i'm a better person for it because I learn from it.

I have 'promulgated' :-) my opinions on regular basis and as with tom (where is he?), I disagree with Lawrence on a lot of things, I thought at first that he was a bully, a man who attacks for the sake of it, in reality, (other than the obvious fake identities), he makes people,me included, seriously think about the arguments one puts forward. One thing I can say with Lawrence, as frustrating as it may be, is that when he argues, he argues with consinstency, truthfully and he sticks to his 'guns'. He doesn't use the threat of the law, he doesn't use the threat of fear, he uses his intelligence and his mind to put his point across and I welcome that; however much that pains me to say, In short, were we to have that beer and despite being on 'opposite sides of the fence', Lawrence is one person i'd have that beer with and Sai-diva too.

Hmph - I wouldn't want to have a beer with you anyway Wayneo... *sticks tongue out*.
Anyway - I don't like beer :))))

If it is equality that you yearn for, then why do you yourself classify individuals into groups of minorities?

because mostly it's the rights of minorities that we discuss on here. In an ideal world we would all be 'humans'or just 'people' If people were all treated equally there would be no need to make any differentiation.

So you were bullied but did you not ask yourself or find out why people (rather than person), were bullying you? Are you able to elaborate? so that people can either agree, yes that incident/s was bad and you didn't deserve that, or whether they can challenge you and say, well, actually I don't think you were bullied because? I'm puzzled that having been bullied, you now want to put others in fear of retribution because they share certain opinions about groups of people

I was extremely good at something that seemed to mark me out as 'gay' to some of the less enlightened, and as such suffered many years of bullying.Mostly condoned by those in authority.I don't feel it nessessary to elaborate so that others can judge whether I 'deserved' to be bullied or not. I felt that i was bullied.
But surely yours is the language of people who believe that rape victims must ask for it by the way they dress/behave. No one deserves to be bullied, whatever justification is given.
The 'retribution' that you refer to is the law, as bullying, homophobia, violence is against the law and therefore should be punished.

I expect so, I guess it depends on how they were protesting, why do you ask?,

Because in my world, and a better man than me said this, or words to the effct that ''for evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to stand by and do nothing'' I have had some lovely, lively debates with the bnp and the nf that came before them.

Freedom of speech is either a freedom to do something or not at all, let's stop pretending that we have such a freedom shall we?

We have it in the same way as we have 'democracy' in this country A p1ss poor system, but the best of a bad bunch.

Did you ask them why they believed that "travellers should be buried in a pit" or did you just tell them that they should moderate their language because you happen to find it offensive? challenging and telling are two different things.

Oh yes, i've asked tigger to moderate his language both towards travellers and myself on innumerable occasions, just to be greeted with more insults. To have a reasonable debate with someone where you can quetion their beliefs requires a degree of intelligence on both sides.

Do you believe you're independently minded enough or even the right person to decide how to dispense that fear and retribution? Ironically, isn't fear and retribution for not conforming something that Reverend Simpson preaches about?

Fair point, but in my defence, i try not to condem, I try to point out the weaknesses in others arguments, I try not to insult. I am prepared to change my mind and mostly and I've said this before, I don't stand in the middle of the high street shouting my offensive(no doubt to some) views.
See you down the pub? I've sent my e mail to Steve, oh and Demoness, they serve wine in pubs, and I'll buy the first round.

wayneo wrote:

supercraig wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote: Wye Valley Secondary Modern School An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs? Profile Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. source: http://www.guardian. co.uk/discussion/use r/impeturbablelawren ce ----- Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012 Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so? Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public. Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes. I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling? 'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable' as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

If anybody has a 'beef' with Lawrence I have that beef. He has called 'me' (wayneo) amongst other things, a clown, untruthful etc etc. He has defended his point-of-view (especially with grammar schools), coherently and intelligently and along with considerable research. I dont go much on the multi alias stuff but if one uses an alias then why shouldn't one use a multiple alias (besides, clyde the police horse, I find funny)? He picks me up for my grammar and spelling regularly (with good reason i might add) and while the first inclination is to be offended, on the contrary, i'm a better person for it because I learn from it.

I have 'promulgated' :-) my opinions on regular basis and as with tom (where is he?), I disagree with Lawrence on a lot of things, I thought at first that he was a bully, a man who attacks for the sake of it, in reality, (other than the obvious fake identities), he makes people,me included, seriously think about the arguments one puts forward. One thing I can say with Lawrence, as frustrating as it may be, is that when he argues, he argues with consinstency, truthfully and he sticks to his 'guns'. He doesn't use the threat of the law, he doesn't use the threat of fear, he uses his intelligence and his mind to put his point across and I welcome that; however much that pains me to say, In short, were we to have that beer and despite being on 'opposite sides of the fence', Lawrence is one person i'd have that beer with and Sai-diva too.

I've been on holiday and pretty much off the internet for the last couple of weeks.

Toying with the idea of beer with Cohen though. It might be interesting

demoness the second wrote:
Hmph - I wouldn't want to have a beer with you anyway Wayneo... *sticks tongue out*. Anyway - I don't like beer :))))

You know I mean you too LOL

tom.marlow2 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

supercraig wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote: Wye Valley Secondary Modern School An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs? Profile Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. source: http://www.guardian. co.uk/discussion/use r/impeturbablelawren ce ----- Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012 Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so? Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public. Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes. I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling? 'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable' as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

If anybody has a 'beef' with Lawrence I have that beef. He has called 'me' (wayneo) amongst other things, a clown, untruthful etc etc. He has defended his point-of-view (especially with grammar schools), coherently and intelligently and along with considerable research. I dont go much on the multi alias stuff but if one uses an alias then why shouldn't one use a multiple alias (besides, clyde the police horse, I find funny)? He picks me up for my grammar and spelling regularly (with good reason i might add) and while the first inclination is to be offended, on the contrary, i'm a better person for it because I learn from it. I have 'promulgated' :-) my opinions on regular basis and as with tom (where is he?), I disagree with Lawrence on a lot of things, I thought at first that he was a bully, a man who attacks for the sake of it, in reality, (other than the obvious fake identities), he makes people,me included, seriously think about the arguments one puts forward. One thing I can say with Lawrence, as frustrating as it may be, is that when he argues, he argues with consinstency, truthfully and he sticks to his 'guns'. He doesn't use the threat of the law, he doesn't use the threat of fear, he uses his intelligence and his mind to put his point across and I welcome that; however much that pains me to say, In short, were we to have that beer and despite being on 'opposite sides of the fence', Lawrence is one person i'd have that beer with and Sai-diva too.

I've been on holiday and pretty much off the internet for the last couple of weeks. Toying with the idea of beer with Cohen though. It might be interesting

Good stuff, hope you had a good holiday.

wayneo wrote:

supercraig wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote: Wye Valley Secondary Modern School An intended slur on your Alma mater, old bean? Special needs? Profile Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks About me: Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. source: http://www.guardian. co.uk/discussion/use r/impeturbablelawren ce ----- Very jokey. And fouling up the BFP discussion &amp; comment pages. As is this specimen's wont in 2012 Doesn't The Guardian really miss a valued contributor, strangely absent from its columns these parst three summers or so? Do check the train times and be respectful of members of the public. Let's hear no more here (final damning epithet) of crazies like Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor. Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey. Real name: Lawrence Location: South Bucks&quot;

I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section unlike people who can’t spell ‘bachelor’ and don’t know what an epithet is, though I must admit I have been outed in the Grauniad and can no longer pretend to be a teenaged, married, gay, non-graduate, who dislikes books, women, and jokes. I originally changed my name on the Guardian to make myself less traceable by deranged stalkers (seems to have been a wise move).

is it not somewhat hypocritical to call him out on his spelling? 'impeturbable' isn't a word - I assume you were going for 'imperturbable' as you hint at, the guardian is hardly renowned for its accurate spelling, so you might want to adopt a more live and let live attitude to it also ;)

If anybody has a 'beef' with Lawrence I have that beef. He has called 'me' (wayneo) amongst other things, a clown, untruthful etc etc. He has defended his point-of-view (especially with grammar schools), coherently and intelligently and along with considerable research. I dont go much on the multi alias stuff but if one uses an alias then why shouldn't one use a multiple alias (besides, clyde the police horse, I find funny)? He picks me up for my grammar and spelling regularly (with good reason i might add) and while the first inclination is to be offended, on the contrary, i'm a better person for it because I learn from it.

I have 'promulgated' :-) my opinions on regular basis and as with tom (where is he?), I disagree with Lawrence on a lot of things, I thought at first that he was a bully, a man who attacks for the sake of it, in reality, (other than the obvious fake identities), he makes people,me included, seriously think about the arguments one puts forward. One thing I can say with Lawrence, as frustrating as it may be, is that when he argues, he argues with consinstency, truthfully and he sticks to his 'guns'. He doesn't use the threat of the law, he doesn't use the threat of fear, he uses his intelligence and his mind to put his point across and I welcome that; however much that pains me to say, In short, were we to have that beer and despite being on 'opposite sides of the fence', Lawrence is one person i'd have that beer with and Sai-diva too.

Wow Wayneo thank you very much - I shall feel guilty and reluctant to disagree with you ever again, after such an endorsement!

I have waited before saying anything in reply as I wanted to quote from a personal email from Steve Cohen – it’s not confidential but it WAS personal and I have been unable to contact him as he is on holiday.

I’m not sure how ‘coherently and intelligently’ I have defended my views on so-called ‘selective’ schools but I feel I have undoubtedly defended them doggedly and it came as something of a relief when the BFP ended the correspondence!

I see you put ‘Promulgate’ in inverted commas. Until now I had always associated promulgation with the most solemn official pronouncements – usually in a religious context - like the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes.

(a) to put (a law, decree, etc.) into effect by official proclamation; (b) to disseminate or propagate (a creed, belief, theory, etc.).

(OED)
Now I regard ‘promulgation’ as a sort of characteristic Waynean BFP word - almost to ‘Wayneo’ what ‘magnificence’ is to ‘ivor’.

I hope I don’t pick you up ‘regularly’ – it’s not how someone spells or punctuates a thing it’s what they say. It would become a boring and snobbish waste of time to be correcting people’s spelling or grammar the whole time if their meaning was clear. Nonetheless I am always suspicious of people expressing their views in poorly-constructed English because it suggests someone isn’t thinking in a rational ordered way and their knowledge and opinions must be incomplete or poorly-constructed too.

I am glad Clyde the Retired Police Horse who admires my robust commonsense, and subtlety of judgement et cetera amuses you. There are people who take the view that the use of obvious pseudonyms is deceitful and manipulative. I suppose they imagine some other reader, whose mind is not quite made up on some issue, looking into the BFP website and reading my opinion on that matter and then reading something by Clyde. Such an imaginary reader might turn to his wife and say ‘here that bloke Lawrence says such and such and DO YOU KNOW WHAT? … he’s being backed up on this one by a RETIRED POLICE HORSE … I don’t know what you think but that makes up my mind for ME!’

It’s funny – there are six people or a smaller number with access to six IPP addresses, or whatever they are called, who go through ivor’s site – often starting in the small hours – and post ‘dislike’ on all my posts while ignoring or giving one or two to Clyde – it looks just as if they think Clyde is a real retired police horse whose opinions should be treated with more respect than mine.

I hope Steve Cohen will not feel I have breached confidence if I say that he contacted me because someone known for her soundness of judgement (though possibly a bit challenged in the sense of humour department) complained about my use of pseudonyms to him, saying that poor Clyde was in breach of section 9 of the Newsquest T&Cs: “you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site”. Mr Cohen discussed it with colleagues and came to what he called a ‘woolly’ conclusion that this was true, but the crucial part of the rule was the part that said ‘…cause disruption or abuse of the site’. So, strictly on condition that they did not breach those parts of the rule, Clyde the Retired Police Horse and Sanders the Lawrence Mansion Telephone Butler, would be allowed to continue strutting their funky stuff in ‘jokey knock-about exchanges’ on Ivor’s blog.
So Sanders and Clyde are still at large wasting everyone’s time but they have now been outed as not real telephone butlers or retired police horses.

I am glad you don’t think I am:

‘a bully, a man who attacks for the sake of it’

and that I argue with ‘consistency, truthfully and … (that I) ‘stick to my guns’. I’m not sure how I COULD employ in the BFP online edition the:

threat of the law, (or)… the threat of fear

.

Obviously my mind is sometimes changed by what I hear from people of different opinions – human being aren’t completely rational beings though – if we were we would agree on everything on completely rational grounds.

I often feel a bit uneasy if someone tells me they are ‘not afraid to speak their mind’ or opinions (ditto someone who says their opinions are ‘often regarded as controversial’, that they ‘feel strongly’ about something, or that they ‘regard themselves as a hands-on manager’). I hope I’m not too fond of arguing and I’m not sure that the fact that someone has lots of opinions that they defend doggedly means they are all insightful or useful opinions but it would be silly to refuse to have opinions or to have them and refuse under all circumstances to share them.

I do not see the problem with using more than one alias on line to be honest. In fact I love Clyde .. his opinions and frankness make perfect sense to me.
I refuse to accept the idea that he is not real - the next thing you will be telling me is that Ivor and Biggun Hall does not exist either! ;)

demoness the second wrote:
I do not see the problem with using more than one alias on line to be honest. In fact I love Clyde .. his opinions and frankness make perfect sense to me.
I refuse to accept the idea that he is not real - the next thing you will be telling me is that Ivor and Biggun Hall does not exist either! ;)

I suppose you mean he has what Americans used to call 'horse sense' when you say:

.. his opinions and frankness make perfect sense to me

demoness the second wrote:
I do not see the problem with using more than one alias on line to be honest. In fact I love Clyde .. his opinions and frankness make perfect sense to me.
I refuse to accept the idea that he is not real - the next thing you will be telling me is that Ivor and Biggun Hall does not exist either! ;)

Thank you ‘Demoness the Second’ - you are quite right of course - Lawrence is merely playing mind games and jesting with you - Clyde and all his establishment ARE real as you say (although here at the Speen Horse Sanctuary we have doubts about the reality of ‘Biggun Hall’ and the individual calling themself or themselves ‘ivor biggun’).

Although I am a horse and it does not fall strictly within the remit of my duties as Clyde’s telephone butler, my master (who is having a nice lie down at the moment) has asked me to convey his goodwill to ‘Demoness the Second’ for her kindly encomiums and to Lawrence for his reference to a most felicitous piece of US terminology.

What a horse!

Forgot to say:

Among your self-plaudits:

"I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section".

Oh yeah. They are standing in the aisles.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
What a horse!

LOL!

What's your problem with Demoness?

I am a virago Lawrence :))

I would imagine that any woman who is outspoken would come under that category in Michael's world.
Still - hopefully he feels better after that rant :)))
I wonder if he understands the meaning of the word irony though.

demoness the second wrote:
I am a virago Lawrence :))

I would imagine that any woman who is outspoken would come under that category in Michael's world.
Still - hopefully he feels better after that rant :)))
I wonder if he understands the meaning of the word irony though.

Thank you for that explanation!

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I am a virago Lawrence :))

I would imagine that any woman who is outspoken would come under that category in Michael's world.
Still - hopefully he feels better after that rant :)))
I wonder if he understands the meaning of the word irony though.

Thank you for that explanation!

That was intended quite seriously - it is a decent explanation in reply to a borderline psychotic.

All this from someone who is worried about me having

… fouled up, for many months, and curtailed from your first post, local BFP urban nostalgia column, written by 'ivor', reminiscing about this or that shop-front.

And it’s in a blog about anonymous posters defending what they write like Demoness says ‘Michael’ is blind to irony.

What a Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor does in his spare time.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq
cE

Says it all really.

Ah they’ve removed it – LOL - I bet he puts up something else now.

Michael - we bookish middle-aged bachelors are entitled to live as well!

We think we’re cool.

Lawarse has had a post removed, it contained a word that I would imagine is on his mind constantly

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Ah they’ve removed it – LOL - I bet he puts up something else now.

He or one of his alter egos.

Lorrainej wrote:
Lawarse has had a post removed, it contained a word that I would imagine is on his mind constantly

It wasn't lawrence's post - it was Michaels.
Why are you attacking Lawrence?

To: lorrainj

Thanks for that clip to Youtube

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq

cE
It shows up the sheer tedium of the said conceited midget's mind. In context. In situ. On a busy day.
'Uploaded by ImpeturbableLawrence on 15 Dec 2009'

'Torrential rain viewed from the windows of the reference section at High Wycombe library in the Eden Centre in mid November 2009'
---
viewers note: all liquids are presumably external.
----
lorrainj - could this be from the same-named Bookish middle aged South Bucks twit , real name Lawrence, heterosexual, who is polluting the columns here with his clever-dick ejaculations?
Keep the so-and-so on the run.
"I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section", it says.
--
Guardian profile:
Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/discussion/use

r/impeturbablelawren
ce

Lorrainej wrote:
What a Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor does in his spare time.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq

cE

Says it all really.

I thought that was a great link - thanks for posting it.
My goodness me you must have a lot of time on your hands to go around trawling the interweb for Lawrence related stuff.
I am sure he is really flattered.

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote: What a Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor does in his spare time. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq cE Says it all really.

I thought that was a great link - thanks for posting it. My goodness me you must have a lot of time on your hands to go around trawling the interweb for Lawrence related stuff. I am sure he is really flattered.

Well yes, you would wouldn't you.

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
What a Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor does in his spare time.

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq


cE

Says it all really.

I thought that was a great link - thanks for posting it.
My goodness me you must have a lot of time on your hands to go around trawling the interweb for Lawrence related stuff.
I am sure he is really flattered.

Thank you. Some people's admiration is not worth having though.

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
What a Bookish middle-aged heterosexual bachelor does in his spare time.

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq


cE

Says it all really.

I thought that was a great link - thanks for posting it.
My goodness me you must have a lot of time on your hands to go around trawling the interweb for Lawrence related stuff.
I am sure he is really flattered.

I am but some people's admiration is not worth having.

Michael, HP7 wrote:
To: lorrainj

Thanks for that clip to Youtube

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq


cE
It shows up the sheer tedium of the said conceited midget's mind. In context. In situ. On a busy day.
'Uploaded by ImpeturbableLawrence on 15 Dec 2009'

'Torrential rain viewed from the windows of the reference section at High Wycombe library in the Eden Centre in mid November 2009'
---
viewers note: all liquids are presumably external.
----
lorrainj - could this be from the same-named Bookish middle aged South Bucks twit , real name Lawrence, heterosexual, who is polluting the columns here with his clever-dick ejaculations?
Keep the so-and-so on the run.
&quot;I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section", it says.
--
Guardian profile:
Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.


co.uk/discussion/use


r/impeturbablelawren

ce

There are loads of them, I bet his other hobby is watching paint dry

Lorrainej wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote:
To: lorrainj

Thanks for that clip to Youtube

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq



cE
It shows up the sheer tedium of the said conceited midget's mind. In context. In situ. On a busy day.
'Uploaded by ImpeturbableLawrence on 15 Dec 2009'

'Torrential rain viewed from the windows of the reference section at High Wycombe library in the Eden Centre in mid November 2009'
---
viewers note: all liquids are presumably external.
----
lorrainj - could this be from the same-named Bookish middle aged South Bucks twit , real name Lawrence, heterosexual, who is polluting the columns here with his clever-dick ejaculations?
Keep the so-and-so on the run.
&quot;I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section", it says.
--
Guardian profile:
Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.#
http://www.guardian.



co.uk/discussion/use



r/impeturbablelawren


ce

There are loads of them, I bet his other hobby is watching paint dry

If you don't like it don't look - that's why I made my facebook account private from clowns like you and the foul-mouthed juvenile deliquent.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

Michael, HP7 wrote: To: lorrainj Thanks for that clip to Youtube http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=18vyvGfGq cE It shows up the sheer tedium of the said conceited midget's mind. In context. In situ. On a busy day. 'Uploaded by ImpeturbableLawrence on 15 Dec 2009' 'Torrential rain viewed from the windows of the reference section at High Wycombe library in the Eden Centre in mid November 2009' --- viewers note: all liquids are presumably external. ---- lorrainj - could this be from the same-named Bookish middle aged South Bucks twit , real name Lawrence, heterosexual, who is polluting the columns here with his clever-dick ejaculations? Keep the so-and-so on the run. &quot;I think I am a great asset to the BFP comments section", it says. -- Guardian profile: Graduate. Interested in History and nature. Jokey.# http://www.guardian. co.uk/discussion/use r/impeturbablelawren ce

There are loads of them, I bet his other hobby is watching paint dry

If you don't like it don't look - that's why I made my facebook account private from clowns like you and the foul-mouthed juvenile deliquent.

hee haw

My god Lawrence - you have an internet stalker!!!

Meow

Lorrainej wrote:
Meow

Not at all.
Just stating the obvious Lorraine. :)
It fascinates me how much time you spend researching and following your victims round the net. :)

demoness the second wrote:
My god Lawrence - you have an internet stalker!!!

Yes - it's a bit scary - I think I've worked out who it is in real life and she's so UGLY!

If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Anyway.. must dash, got some serious sucking up to do,
God life is hard.
Happy stalking LJ :)))

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

It's probably an involuntary fascination - like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
My god Lawrence - you have an internet stalker!!!

Yes - it's a bit scary - I think I've worked out who it is in real life and she's so UGLY!

Not as ugly as you Lawarse, and you only think you know me, so can only think how ugly I maybe, I definitely know you, and definately know just how fugly you are.

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

demoness the second wrote:
Anyway.. must dash, got some serious sucking up to do,
God life is hard.
Happy stalking LJ :)))

You have learnt your lesson, well done, glad to see you have at last put your highly intelligent brain to good use. I'm impressed

Lorrainej wrote:
I would just like to say, to anybody who is interested. It will be 3 years this Christmas, YES 3 years since I ridiculed Morag. Just over 2 years ago I followed Morag elswhere, and came to see the person she is, I very much liked the person I saw, and still do. However I didn't like the person I had become, and all because of some blog, where people behaved like thugs, and thats what I became.Fortunately, I manage, most of the time to keep away. Ivors blog was always what is was and still is a pastime, thats why I find it so humorous, I think I made this quite clear from when I began posting in October 2009. Some people however, have to try and prove they are better educated, better writers, better at getting an argument across, and some are just plain ugly. I have appologised to Morag, on several occasions, Morag being the better person has accepted that without question. I feel very fortunate to have been able to correspond with Morag, and also very humbled. Thank you Morag

I was interested to see your remark:

… I didn't like the person I had become, and all because of some blog, where people behaved like thugs, and thats what I became.

.
I know what you mean – I was normal too until I started reading ivor’s blog.

Fortunately, I manage, most of the time to keep away.

.
Unfortunately it’s not all of the time.

Ivors blog was always what is was and still is a pastime, thats why I find it so humorous,

.
That must be the reason your comments are so humorous.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to correspond with Morag, and also very humbled. Thank you Morag

.
Please see my comments on ivor’s latest blog about whether or not the endorsement of ‘Lorrainej’ is an unqualified benefit: http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/yoursay/
opinion/blogs/987318
2.The_Olympic_Legacy
__Great_Britain_is_e
ven_greater/?action=
success.

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
"Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
Anyway.. must dash, got some serious sucking up to do,
God life is hard.
Happy stalking LJ :)))

You have learnt your lesson, well done, glad to see you have at last put your highly intelligent brain to good use. I'm impressed

Why thank you.
It is so nice to be appreciated.

You keep on worrying about people being highly intelligent – why - that is not a problem that will concern YOU?

Thanks Lawarse, you are still ugly tho

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

I'll take a risk and speculate that she's not.

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

Short term memory loss

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

I'll take a risk and speculate that she's not.

Wow, never saw you as a risk taker or a speculator

Lorrainej wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

I'll take a risk and speculate that she's not.

Wow, never saw you as a risk taker or a speculator

Just proves what a superficial observer you are then doesn't it?

(Just what you'd expect from someone who isn't very intelligent.)

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
You keep on worrying about people being highly intelligent – why - that is not a problem that will concern YOU?

No Demoness, you are the only one who has made that claim, surely you remember. But I do expect people that make such dramatic claims back them up

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

I'll take a risk and speculate that she's not.

Wow, never saw you as a risk taker or a speculator

Just proves what a superficial observer you are then doesn't it?

(Just what you'd expect from someone who isn't very intelligent.)

As a superficial observer, have I got this wrong, I see you as an over middle aged, fugly, bachelor (a w@@ker really) with an ego so huge, it's laughable. But I suppose an illiterate birk would be wrong, but a w@@nker would be right.

Lorrainej wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Lorrainej wrote:
If that fascinates you, all I can say is little things please little minds. And I would think I spend considerably less time googling Lawarse than you spend either arguing or sucking up to people

Not a good put me down Lorraine.
Try harder :))

Are yours...... Ever, from somebody who claims to be highly intelligent, I think not

That sentence makes no sense.
How about this..
&quot;Are yours.. ever?
From someone who claims to be highly intelligent. I think not."
Although that implies that you are claiming to be highly intelligent, Which you may well be, I don't know.

I'll take a risk and speculate that she's not.

Wow, never saw you as a risk taker or a speculator

Just proves what a superficial observer you are then doesn't it?

(Just what you'd expect from someone who isn't very intelligent.)

As a superficial observer, have I got this wrong, I see you as an over middle aged, fugly, bachelor (a w@@ker really) with an ego so huge, it's laughable. But I suppose an illiterate birk would be wrong, but a w@@nker would be right.

(Lawrence looks thoughtful.) 'That sounds just about right to me.'

Lorrainej wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
You keep on worrying about people being highly intelligent – why - that is not a problem that will concern YOU?

No Demoness, you are the only one who has made that claim, surely you remember. But I do expect people that make such dramatic claims back them up

Why this is addressed to Demoness – it’s hardly a dramatic claim - I was agreeing with Dame Brenda on the occasion to which you refer and I am just saying now that high intelligence is never likely to be a problem that affects you - it's a bit like an anorectic worrying about looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger (or however his name is spelt.)

Okay?

You could have saved us an awful lot of time if you had just agreed you were a w@@ker all those months ago. Fair play Lawarse, it took a while, but you got there in the end. What a w@@ker

Lorrainej wrote:
You could have saved us an awful lot of time if you had just agreed you were a w@@ker all those months ago. Fair play Lawarse, it took a while, but you got there in the end. What a w@@ker

I STILL haven't got there - just because there are so many men who would rather do that than the other thing with you.

Sorry Lawarse you are boring me now you old ****, we have been down this road before. Get a grip, I'm falling asleep. Night

Lorrainej wrote:
Sorry Lawarse you are boring me now you old ****, we have been down this road before. Get a grip, I'm falling asleep. Night

Sleep tight - Crisis is a favourite charity of mine - I actually volunteered for them one Christmas - luckily you weren't there - it was in South London.

I don't think the Charities you supposedly support would find your comments amusing Lawarse. Why do you have to use these charities as some form of crutch. Do you support them because you see the people inferior to yourself, it certainly comes across like that. Your Superiority complex (or other superiority issues)is hiding the fact that you are a lot more inferior that you perceive. I don't find it amusing either.

Lorrainej wrote:
You could have saved us an awful lot of time if you had just agreed you were a w@@ker all those months ago. Fair play Lawarse, it took a while, but you got there in the end. What a w@@ker

what is a 'watatker'?

Lorrainej wrote:
I don't think the Charities you supposedly support would find your comments amusing Lawarse. Why do you have to use these charities as some form of crutch. Do you support them because you see the people inferior to yourself, it certainly comes across like that. Your Superiority complex (or other superiority issues)is hiding the fact that you are a lot more inferior that you perceive. I don't find it amusing either.

I assumed that a girl whose mental health problems led her to write obscenely worded letters to the local press would be homeless and I just wanted to be sympathetic.

I worked for Crisis for myself because I thought it would be good fun working with and for interesting people.

Now I am going to deprive you of the oxygen of attention from me.

I worked for Crisis ... because I thought it would be good fun working with and for interesting people.

(It was.)

Well I'm sure they would be very interested to learn that you associate mental health problems with being homeless. Your sympathetic nature comes across load and clear, and I'm sure they will back you 100% with your structured advertising campaign on the BFP. Have you been financially rewarded for this.

the oxygen of attention

I’m beginning to wonder why I ever created Lorrainj.

There doesn’t appear to be any real benefit to the world by her existence.

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder why I ever created Lorrainj. There doesn’t appear to be any real benefit to the world by her existence.

I can teach you to spell Lorraine for a start

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder why I ever created Lorrainj.

There doesn’t appear to be any real benefit to the world by her existence.

Please spare her God - her existence makes me feel superior.

Actually if You don’t want to spare her then it’s not important.

She also spells her name with a 'j' which in parts of Europe, I decided that they should pronounce it like the English 'y'.

This makes for interesting (funny) pronunciation of her name.

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
She also spells her name with a 'j' which in parts of Europe, I decided that they should pronounce it like the English 'y'.

This makes for interesting (funny) pronunciation of her name.

No answer to that!

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Actually if You don’t want to spare her then it’s not important.

I’ll wait to see how many more blasphemous remarks she makes before I decide.

She needs to remember that I also know what she’s thinking.

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
She also spells her name with a 'j' which in parts of Europe, I decided that they should pronounce it like the English 'y'.

This makes for interesting (funny) pronunciation of her name.

But if you SHOULD feel there is no point in letting her continue to exist then don't worry - I can always find someone else to feel superior to and - as I said - if You don’t want to spare her any longer then it’s not important.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
She also spells her name with a 'j' which in parts of Europe, I decided that they should pronounce it like the English 'y'.

This makes for interesting (funny) pronunciation of her name.

But if you SHOULD feel there is no point in letting her continue to exist then don't worry - I can always find someone else to feel superior to and - as I said - if You don’t want to spare her any longer then it’s not important.

I hope I don't die tonight - it would be a bit embarrassing after my last post.

Don't worry Lawrence. If I do decide to bring you in tonight, we can have a good old laugh over it.

Lorrainj is a different matter altogether.

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
Don't worry Lawrence. If I do decide to bring you in tonight, we can have a good old laugh over it.

Lorrainj is a different matter altogether.

It's a deal - must go now.

(Of course You KNEW that - You are omniscient!)

I KNOW EVERYTHING

Oh damm, what do I do, stay here and play all night with these intelligent beings, or go out for an enjoyable evening with friends. Thats a tough one for an illiterate birk, but sorry guys you lose

Lorrainej wrote:
Oh damm, what do I do, stay here and play all night with these intelligent beings, or go out for an enjoyable evening with friends. Thats a tough one for an illiterate birk, but sorry guys you lose

Your 'friends' don't really like you that much.

I know.

And you’re blaspheming again – Another strike against you.

THE ONE TRUE GOD wrote:
And you’re blaspheming again – Another strike against you.

YAY!!!
You are back :))

Hope you are well your godliness :))

Bless you my child.... :-D

Nothing to say - I just thought I'd have the last word.