Friday, 6 September 2013

Gimme Shelter, the disappearance of a Ramsgate shelter and other ramblings

I got an email from an Eastcliff resident saying one of the shelters had gone yesterday.

Here is the email and accompanying picture

I as came along Wellington Crescent this morning, the shelter was being taken down.

I asked the workman if it was going to be replaced - they said no.

Picture attached of the empty site”

I thought I had better contact the council over this one, here is what they had to say:

“Dear Michael,

With regards to your enquiry about the shelter removal from the Ramsgate Eastcliff Promenade.

The condition of this shelter was assessed on 30 August and found to be below the safe standard we require for shelters. As this shelter is not one of the historic shelters currently maintained by the Ramsgate Society, and is consistently vandalised, members agreed that it should be removed and the ground repaired. There are no current plans to replace this shelter.

 Kind regards,

Corporate Information & Communications Manager


Thanet District Council.


On the whole I think this was a reasonable decision as the shelter they have removed was pretty nasty.

As far as the blog goes I am still having difficulties with the same few spammers, on the last thread I did have a go at trying to engage in dialogues with some of them for interests sake.

Mostly to try and find out why they would wish to damage the area that I live and work in, partly because it is directly damaging to my own business and partly because they seem to want to stop any reasonable dialogue here.

Anyway comments about 0% fraud, poisoned drinking water, the various terrorism acts and so on I will now spammed immediately.

In my bookshop the business of making sure all of the books on the shelves are priced in a way that competes with the internet is still ongoing.

I have pretty much done it now apart from the children’s books and the theology books and am about to do the children’s section.

I have been concerned about sourcing stock, for the most part the stock in the charity shops and at bootfairs is rather like our sale stock and in the days when the charity shop and bootfair prices were in the same price frame as our very cheap books, it was easy for me to buy the few better books available for stock.

Now our very cheap books are 5p for paperbacks and 10p for hardbacks where the charity shops are charging a pound or two, things are trickier.



I went to Sandwich and bought the books pictured below.   


I will endeavour to ramble on here  

102 comments:

  1. I don't have too much sympathy over the spamming on here Michael. You found a perfectly acceptable remedy by not allowing anonymous contributions, only to go back to accepting them (and spam) again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting 3.13? Your response indicates this post is not about the removal of a real shelter, providing respite from the physical elements, but rather as a metaphor for the removal of certain comments which had found shelter on Michael's blog?

      Delete
    2. More likely it was a reply to the bit where Michael wrote "As far as the blog goes I am still having difficulties with the same few spammers"...

      Delete
    3. I see Catch 3.13, this some sort of Zen is it? An anonymous comment saying I shouldn’t allow anonymous comments, well you made me laugh and thank you for that.

      I guess one of the main objectives of the spam commentators is to prevent others from commenting, my guess is that what they would really like is for me let them write the posts, the catch 22 here is that no one would read them. They would then like people of some standing in the community to come along and comment. “Oh how right you are, I will resign immediately.” Would it be something like this?

      There isn’t much you can do with individuals who are certain that they are right, I would say it’s a personally thing that for some moves into the personality disorder area.

      Delete
    4. Of course the other answer Michael is to approve comments before they're posted, the same as the vast majority of bloggers (including myself, Simon, Louise, Ian, John, Solo)... I realise you don't have much time, but if you did this (say) once a day then you wouldn't have as many comments to go through in the first place.

      Delete
    5. ... and I obviously read the whole post, unlike Mr Gay! ; )

      Delete
    6. To be honest Peter I don’t have the time or the inclination, I see the blog a displacement activity, today for knocking down the prices of children’s books. Writing the posts doesn’t take me very long and I probably only look at it as much as most of the other commentators.

      The easiest thing for me is to do is check the comment control page occasionally and delete anything inappropriate, my change in operation now, is that if I start reading a comment and I get to a mention of; 0% fraud, poisoned drinking water, the various terrorism acts and so on it will now spammed immediately, instead of deleted.

      It is after all spam, in the spam way that gentlemen enlargement or ppi recover comments are.

      Delete
    7. Michael,

      There are two spammers that infest this blog. They both come across as nutters. Allowing them access to your blog could be construed as care in the community. For which the NHS should reimburse you as a consequence. No? perhaps not then.

      This blog improved when you banned 'anonymous'. I do not think it unreasonable for would be commentators to get a unique blogger identity, or to use their real name that can be verified.

      Delete
  2. I'm not one of the posters to whom John Holyer refers, but I don't think the problem is limited to them at all. In fact, I can quite happily skim over posts by Richard Card, safe in the knowledge that I'm not missing anything because I know exactly what it says. On the other hand, I find it more difficult to skim over the volume of tripe posted by John Holyer, Peter Checksfield and John Hamilton (+aliases), or the three stooges as I prefer to call them.

    For this reason, I think it is simplistic and naïve to suggest that the problem of off-topic garbage can be solved by banning anonymous posts. The anonymous posters would simply invent ludicrous pseudonyms of their own and continue posting. I see it as an exercise in how we run a democracy as opposed to a police state. In a democracy, we allow people to say what they want. However, if we don't want to ruin the forum we have to display considerable self-discipline by NOT responding to every bit of idiocy which finds its way into print. For me, this is where the three stooges are contributing to the decline of the blog. They insist on responding to everything and having the last word; essentially, seeking to dominate the site with their own views.

    I know this isn't going to go down well with the stooges because they irrationally believe that they occupy the high moral ground. However, I doubt that I'm the only one who feels like this and, as this is my one and only posting on the subject, I intend to say what I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can understand someone finding John Hamilton hard to take because he does not pull his punches, although his usual targets ask for all they get. John Holyer enjoys winding people up so, again, I can understand he might irritate the odd one track mind anonymous, but why poor old Peter. He doesn't say a lot, has fairly positive views on some issues and he is no fan of the imported northerners who oppose everything worthwhile. Hardly stooge material.

      What I find hard to take is people who anonymously ask the same questions over and over again, never offer any answers or their solutions and are rude to everyone else in the process. If you want to be rude at least have the decency to say who you are.

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:29pm,

      Why are you so frightened that people will discover your identity?

      Having said that I will heed your admonishment NOT to respond to your bit of idiocy that has found its way into print.


      I remember the Three Stooges well. They were my favourites as a child. I used to watch them in the small Merrie England Cinema run by my aunt. I notice there has been a recent remake which is enjoying good reviews. I will make an effort to see it.

      Delete
    3. William "I can understand someone finding John Hamilton hard to take" has nothing to do with his punches it is his trolling and language that is hard to take. Do you read his comments on here http://geoffreybarnesblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/hamiltons-false-accusations-removed-from-facebook/ ?

      Delete
    4. It was the collective 'three stooges' to which I was primarily referring and wondering why poor old Peter C was in there. I am well aware of John Hamilton's terminology and language and can see how that would upset some. What more can one add.

      Delete
    5. condemnation of it would be a start. Surely you do not approve?

      Delete
    6. Anon, you seem to be deliberately missing the point about Peter being, unfairly in my opinion, included in the three stooges. As for John Hamilton, although I would not use his language, much of what he writes is pretty accurate. Turning to the Geoffrey Barnes blog, well that seems entirely dedicated to slagging off John Hamilton whereas on JH's site, Ian Driver is just one of a number of people he attacks. I think it is a case of what people write on their own blogs, within the limitations of libel laws, is entirely up to them. Whether I approve or not is quite irrelevant for there is nothing I could do to stop them anyway.

      Delete
    7. Thanks William... maybe 4:29 was referring to Iggy (Pop) and The Stooges, though it is quite frankly beyond me how anyone can mistake a skinny old bloke who likes to take his clothes off with me!

      Delete
    8. Beats me too, Peter, but enjoyed the parallel.

      Delete
    9. typical political statement Eppsy "much of what he writes is pretty accurate" which bits, the bile, the personal attacks, the hate, the calling people oxygen thieves, which?

      Delete
    10. Go back to sleep, 4:23, for I find you frightfully tedious when you are awake.

      Delete
    11. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      Delete
    12. I right perfectly correct comments, and tailor my posts to the forum they are posted in. Barnes is simply a worthless fool, if he's even real, and what I post here, and on my own blog is both factual and accurate. I simply tell it like it is, no more no less.

      Delete
    13. You "right" perfectly correct comments? Presumably you were in the pub with Smithson last night! ; )

      Delete
    14. Agree with the comment above on the Three Stooges of Holyer, Hamilton and Checksfield insisting on commenting on everything and ruining the blog. Peter isn't too bad but Cllr Epps seems to be indulging in that role then refusing to deal with the political issues raised.

      The result as when Anons were censored is this blog becomes rather dull pensioners griping over nothing much. I can;t see why 0% corruption or Thor or water quality would be censored but so be it - if only the blog could provide more interesting/relevant topics.

      Delete
    15. Thankfully we have interesting anonymous comments like yours to prevent things getting dull 10:21 (and I'm not a pensioner!).

      Delete
    16. And the rate governments are upping retirement ages, you probably never will be Peter.

      Delete
    17. Anon 10:21 am,

      You're so stupid you'd get hit by a parked car.

      Delete
    18. One post a day Holyer and no insults please.

      Delete
    19. You know so little and know it so fluently.

      Delete
    20. You can't help yourself can you John? The last word and silly insults. You're ruining this blog.

      Delete
    21. Anon 4:00pm,

      That's not true. I do not always like to have the last word.

      I should be grateful if you did not address by my first name, a simple 'Sir' is good enough for you.

      You are so stupid that if you threw a rock at the ground you'd miss.

      Delete
    22. Shush John. you've had more than one post now.

      Delete
    23. Anon 8:54pm,

      Take your personality disorder elsewhere.

      Delete
  3. Must admit - skimmed most of that. sorry. was the actual point argued here? TDC have removed an asset from Thanet. Has anyone anything to say on that subject or should we be like eastenders and talk about the drama? Sorry for the flippancy of the comment but - as I am sure you can appreciate - the level of discourse often descends to the lowest factors. But I think its shocking they can just do this - make it a faded memory. Thanks TDC! :D Shame this shelter got to this state!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Duncan, if you had read the story instead of skipping it you would have grasped the point. Presumably you're just back from the pub.

      Delete
    2. A shelter has gone, and what? Hardly an important issue, and I would suggest that 99.9% of Thanet residents wouldn't have known it existed, have ever used it, or have any care whatsoever that it's no longer there.

      If your "shocked" at such a minor issue smithson, I suggest you need to get out more ;)

      Delete
    3. I see what you are saying John - its a small issue - but these things slowly start being erased from Thanets Heritage. Its a shame they cant keep them maintained - or perhaps find some funding for keeping them maintained - rather than just removing them. Same thing happened at Ramsgate seafront - five chairs turn into two. In my opinion it is this slow, constant removal of anything good from Thanet that needs to be stopped. And sorry for not reading the thread - I skimmed it and got the primary points.

      Delete
    4. It is this sad ebbing away of our Heritage that got me interested in trying to raise the alarm through social media, to highlight it through the prism of lgbt lifestyles. I remain hopeful they will rally to the cause....

      It is always good to find allies.

      Delete
  4. On the spam issue - is there a way to prevent "anon" comments? This would at least allow us to know (roughly) to whom we were talking? If you follow the blogs, you will know the names. This would be - of course - only a stop gap measure :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duncan, I agree with you about blocking the anons.

      Delete
    2. *Sigh* keep up snithson, they were banned for a time on Michaels blog, and always have been. I thought you were knowledgeable on blogs and personal media sites, clearly that claim was as in accurate as all the rest of your claims ;)

      Delete
    3. Sorry to disappoint you JH. I only skim blog sites and twitter - sorry if I have missed things

      Delete
    4. Not really disappointed smithson, that would involve me thinking you can do better, but then I KNOW you can't ;)

      Delete
  5. Hamilton you are getting so boring with your allegation that barry was "forced" to remove some posts. Your many posts on this subject are provided with no proof of anyone being "forced" to do anything. Your whole blog says you cut through BS so I presume you have proof not guesswork so why don't you post it either here or on your blog. Otherwise your allegations are just BS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does that subject raise it's head here on this thread anon? Clearly you seem to be hung up on it, i merely post the truth in connection with that subject. I have no intention of entering debate with anyone who doesn't have to balls to use their name when they write BS such as yours 10:29.

      Delete
    2. But your name is not John Hamilton - dont you see some sort of irony here John?

      Delete
    3. You just said his name isn't John Hamilton while calling him John - THAT'S ironic!

      Delete
    4. It looks like "John Hamilton" has finally been outed, see ECR's blog!!!

      Delete
    5. Let's hope the shelter is replaced with the Victorian style ones: TDC has plenty of tax money to pay for them.

      Delete
    6. Happily smithson, that is only true in your poor drunken and lacking "mind" my boy ;)

      Well said 7:55

      Delete
  6. no more hung up than you seem to be Hamilton. In fact your continual posting on the subject is harassment and I am surprised Michael hasn't told you to stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the way that some people get all self righteous and high minded while cowering behind the skirts of anonymity.

      Delete
    2. I love the way that some individuals hide behind a plethora of pseudonyms.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 6:33PM,

      I do not use a pseudonym. Which you could easily check, if you had the wit. Be honest, at least with yourself, you are terrified that someone will discover who you are. Why?

      Delete
    4. John I know you are real as I can google your name but as Farnie said the other day we are all anonymous on here except those that are prepared to meet in the real world. This doesn't alter the fact that harassment goes on. Isn't the continual harassment that is wrong, and the posting of allegations without proof. Does it matter whether it is an anon posting or someone with a blogger account?

      Delete
    5. Barry, if you forgive the familiarity, I think the main plus of the named account holder is the ability to follow a thread of comments. The anonymous contributor is lost in a group of similar contributors and finds it much easier to deny earlier statements.

      As for John Holyer being real, I can vouch for that for we used to frequent the same piece of jungle. Difference being that as a 'penguin' and thus rather delicate he used to get transported into the radar station clearing whereas, as a 'rockape' I had to do it the hard way and tramp through the forest. Just a leg pull, John.

      Delete
    6. William it shows you know John but then that wasn't the point I was trying to get over. No one deserves harassment nor bullying whether that be from an anon or a named blogger. Nor does anyone deserve the vicious language being used on Geoff's blog. Whether you agree with a point of view or not it is always best to be polite, you should know that being in politics which can be quite unpleasant at times.

      Delete
    7. Everyone in Thanet has met me... all those that are worth meeting anyway! ; )

      Delete
    8. Agreed Barry, but sometimes the rudeness is both ways and, you must admit, there are those, and particularly in the world of politics, who set themselves up to be knocked down. That is why I prefer to avoid issues specific to the council on which I serve on a blogsite. Nonetheless, I reserve the right as an individual to have an opinion on most topics and to respect the rights of others to hold the opinions they do even if I do not agree with them.

      Delete
    9. William,

      They made you tramp up the Hill to save HMG the train fare. We penguins (all flap & no fly) also had it rough. I had to walk to and from the Land Rover. Why, sometimes there were no chips on the lunch menu for two days on the trot. At times we were rudely awakened at work by strange figures emerging from the jungle. And I was wounded action; I tumbled straight over a beer can in the NAAFI.

      Delete
    10. Careful, John, those who did not get their knees brown will think you are joking. By the way, some Rock wrote in the messing suggestions book at Butterworth "Too much steak, not enough chips." Our Aussie cousins were not impressed for they had steak for breakfast, lunch and tea as well as in sandwiches for the duty suppers.

      Delete
    11. Tedious old men talking about nothing in their twilight years.

      Delete
    12. Anon 1:13 pm,

      Yep, that's you alright.

      Delete
  7. James, You post unevidenced BS daily, then whine when people expose the fact you are posting unevidenced BS, and indeed being forced to remove such bullshit. If you want to be taken seriously, post something you can prove, with some evidence ;)

    And if you don;t like the language used on Barnes's blog, hey, guess what, don't go there ;) It's only a vehicle to attack me, and if you feel brave enough to attack me there, don;t be surprised if I treat you as you should be treated. I didn't follow you there did I now.

    So really my boy, lets not have you whining your being harassed and people being nasty to you, when it's you following me to groups where you think people will defend you when you post your usual brand of dishonest BS, grow up, there's a good boy ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where on Geoff's blog do you deny you are a troll Hamilton?

      Delete
    2. What's this waffle from Epps on Michael's Press Release blog? What Town Clerk allegations and what has this to do with anything beyond petty vendettas?

      Tell you what, Bluenote, when were you at Hereford or even Longmoor? Don't even recall seeing you around the old D of Y Barracks on the Kings Road. Strange that with all your connections, but, what the hell, if you want to leave it then so will I. No more letters to the Town Clerk and I will try to stop myself peeing with laughter at some of your allegations.”

      Delete
    3. Hamilton I read Barnes's blog all they do on there is expose your BS for what it is.

      Delete
    4. Anon 1:17, my comment was addressed to Bluenote, is absolutely nothing to do with you and you could not be expected to understand the references to places. Furthermore it is on a different blog site and on another thread so do not expect any answers here. If you want to try and join in over on Thanet Press Releases please be my guest.

      Delete
    5. There's a Daily Mail article on ectopic pregnancy and a lung cancer drug to cure it(page 9) which crops up here as an issue. 12,000 victims apparaently.

      Delete
    6. Where exactly does it crop up here, 5:12, and what has it to do with a disappearing shelter.

      Delete
    7. Has Epps been contacted by the Town Clerk for something? Talking rubbish on the rates?

      Delete
    8. No, 7:01, to see how my chauffeur is performing and whether I am getting enough tea and biscuits. If you will ask silly questions.....etc.

      Delete
    9. Are their chauffeurs/drivers/taxis at Broadstairs Council Cllr Epps? Is there a report and accounts to view online?

      Delete
    10. There is 8:55, it's called a fairy tale, ask James for it, he makes up a good story ;)

      Delete
    11. Oh John. In the new world, you would be defined as having mental issues. I hope you are not an undiagnosed "at risk" person. Please understand that the modern world finds you a little offensive. You may have your mates that agree - the modern world doesnt. And - for reference - you havent been banned from any of my sites. But I seem to be blocked from yours, which strikes me of double standards ;) And - at the risk of going back on topic - i still find it wrong that - slowly - the heritage of the area is being removed

      Delete
  8. Oh smithson, if only there was a world in which anyone cared what you were wittering on about what your opinion was on ANY suibject, or indeed where they took you seriously ;)

    Your opinion as always is irrelevant, even FORS threw you out, and you were supposed to be on their side, you're just a bit of a joke my boy.

    You aren't banned per se smithson, I have no interest in your tragic attempt at self engranishment that is your FB page, or through my sites, you are simply an out of date irrelevance.

    Seems Cllr Poole got his description of you 100% accurate :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. FORS has never thrown any real people out of their FB page. People leave and join on their own. hammy was removed by FB due to the volume of complaints made against his trolling as evidenced by the removal of his vile posting on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can we quote you on that one John - Hamilton agrees with Deputy Leader Alan 'The Rock' Poole? I left the FORS group on Facebook for a number of reasons - mainly because your mate was getting rattled by emails I was sending him and blaming it on FORS. When I was calling him incompetent and bad for the Isle, he blamed the FORS group for the comments. Hope thats cleared it up. Tempted to re-join for a bit to see whats going on but my primary objective was to help them get the public meeting - which we achieved. Hows the Tesco site going? And can we PLEASE try to stay on message? I do understand that certain people get distracted by lesser arguments on blogs but really. This has strayed a long way off topic! Which is a shame because there are issues that should be discussed, rather than relying on the school boy tactics of name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just scrolling through some of these comments you can see how this blog has been taken over by petty nastiness and drivel by Holyer, Hamilton and Epps. How can we stop them: nothing they say is of use or interest and they can create thier own blogs for their views?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As can you, 10:57, for I find your comment totally irrelevant to anything that has gone before. You just whine about other people who, in the main, contribute more than you.

      Delete
    2. Anon 10:57,

      I recognise you as that ubiquitous nutter fraudulently posing as the impartial voice of reason.

      I appreciate that making close relationships can be extremely difficult for you. People may describe you as eccentric, and you find that you think differently from others. You might believe that you can read minds or that you have special powers, and you may feel anxious and tense with others who do not share these beliefs. However, none of this is an excuse for your gratuitous insults to others.

      Delete
    3. Crikey someone's rattled the last two anons.

      Delete
    4. Sounds like Holyer as an Anonymouse now!

      Delete
  12. Oh James, i'm not sure if your simply a bald faced liar, or an incompetent. FORS has never booted a real person? Well, now let's see. Although FB will automatically remove the majority of comments complained about, and sometimes even suspend accounts, they do NOT and never have remove people from groups. Hence I was almost certainly removed by Kandy, if not the only other admin at the time.

    These facts means that your statement "FORS has never thrown any real people out of their FB page" is clearly yet another lie you purport to present as a fact. Try to post a fact James there's a good boy.

    Pooles description of you was spot on smithson, even one would suggest charitable. I know James gets distracted easily, but the poor tard has to try to feel important somewhere to someone, that's why he makes up his fairy tales.

    10:57, I have my own blog thanks, feel free to comment there, but of course, you'll have to get an account, as I don;t allow anon posting, it brings nothing of value to any thread ever :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. FB do not automatically remove posts (they dont have the staff to do this) they only remove them after someone has complained about the post. FACT. If you are unable to accept that then you are more stupid than people give you credit for.
    Kandy was one of three admins at the time of your removal by FB and all three admins have confirmed they never removed you neither did they remove your posts which mysteriously disappeared at the same time.
    You do have one claim to fame though the removal of one of your FB posts on "Yes to Arlington" where you claimed someone was a racist without a shred of evidence which FB removed as it broke their policies (the person named complained to FB about the post I have seen the screenshots)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why hamilton was removed is obvious when you look at his vile nasty postings on his own and Barnes's blog. good riddance

      Delete
    2. Oh bless you anon, if you don't have the balls to use your name, don;t expect anyone to take you seriously.

      Delete
    3. PS, where did I say that FB remove posts that HAVEN'T been whined about? Seems you've been caught in yet ANOTHER lie James ;)

      Delete
  14. Who is Hamilton?

    ReplyDelete
  15. As you confirm James, FB DO sutomatically remove conplained about comments as they clearly don;t have an army of staff to deal with the innumerable whinings of over a billion users ;) Clearly to automatically remove them requires LESS staff, so quite what you mean by your rambling and inacurate claim "FB do not automatically remove posts (they dont have the staff to do this)" is a mystery to everyone but you my boy. That my poor lil lad really is a FACT though i realise you struggle with that term and it's meaning.

    If you are unable to accept that then you are more stupid than people give you credit for.
    Oh James, you are SO clueless, When I was removed, most likely by Kandy as FB do NOT and never have removed anyoine from groups, their posts go with them, Seems you're either REALLY stupid, gullible and being lied to, or simply a liar, which is it James, there are no other options.

    Yep that perfectly true comment was autoremoved by FB when Scott whined about it.

    Tell me James, why, if you weren;t forced to (clearly you were of course) did you remove your slanderous/libelous lies about Cardy's when you were caught in ANOTHER lie I wonder...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FB do not automatically remove content when complained about https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

      " you see something on Facebook that you believe violates our terms, you should report it to us. Please keep in mind that reporting a piece of content does not guarantee that it will be removed from the site.

      Because of the diversity of our community, it's possible that something could be disagreeable or disturbing to you without meeting the criteria for being removed or blocked. For this reason, we also offer personal controls over what you see, such as the ability to hide or quietly cut ties with people, Pages, or applications that offend you." FACT do you not understand the English language hammy

      Delete
    2. I closed my Facebook account to get away from all this... please take it elsewhere boys & girls!

      And Barry, whatever the right & wrongs of your campaigns, you must rank as the most boring person in Thanet if your posts are anything to go by (if ever we meet I'll need something much stronger than coffee to keep me awake if you're as dull in person as you are on here!).

      Delete
    3. Tell us all again about FB removing people from groups, and having a VAST army of people personally checking the whiny protestations of people like you and failed occutard Scott HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      James, you REALLY need to check your facts before posting such BS as your last post, you are becoming a bigger joke daily!

      FACT - you post BS and expect people to swallow it whole. This isn't FORS, people here are not as gullible, and i will continue to expose your BS, such as that that you posted re Cardy's that you were forced to remove.

      Delete
  16. PS name is just above this and every other of my posts on this site :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. But that's not you real name is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's nothing dishonest about posting anonymously.

      Delete
    2. No, but it is hypercritical to complain about others hiding their identity.

      Delete
    3. It's the name I was born with anon, shame you don;t have the balls to use the name you were born with ;)

      Delete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.