Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Mickey-Taking - Eneida Nelson (4th Jul 2007 - 08:46:23) I don't know about anybody else, but it makes me pretty angry to read in Freddie's post that some posters here are masquerading as 2 different people!!! Hardly in the spirit of a Community web-site is it? And why should they then expect the rest of us, who are honest enough to use our real names, to support their causes....whatever those may be? Eneida....the only one in the Village :)

Re: Mickey-Taking - liz (4th Jul 2007 - 12:05:09) Eneida Freddie accused ,me directly and as you will see in my reply to him I am very angry about it. Be assured I am not taking the mickey and have always made my comments in good faith. Just another attempt to shut people up no doubt.

Re: Mickey-Taking - Freddie Dawkins (4th Jul 2007 - 14:07:17) Liz - sorry but you're wrong! See my latest posting in the long Parish Council thread. Eneida - thanks again. (any mis-placed wheelie bins about - I could do with another recycler ;-))

Re: Mickey-Taking - liz (4th Jul 2007 - 15:09:41) Freddie If you refuse to believe that I am telling the truth that only reflects on your lack of judgement.

Re: Mickey-Taking - Eneida (4th Jul 2007 - 16:17:20) Liz, I didn't for a moment imagine you're anybody but the one and only real Liz who's been posting here for as long as I have!!! I recognise your style of writing and your spelling bears no resemblance to the other person(s) in question ;) Freddie, Sorry no spare wheelies :) I know the question of identity has been discussed on another thread, but I posted this separately because I wanted to disassociate my point with having anything to do with the Council debate. I would prefer people to use their real names but do understand why some don't wish to. What I find totally and utterly unacceptable is the thought that some people are using 2 separate names to support themselves in their argument. I believe this compromises the integrity of this web-site where we so often debate really important matters to do with the Village and I sincerely hope the Editor will put a stop to what I can only describe as 'deceit'.... Eneida

Re: Mickey-Taking - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 17:17:52) eneida I will confirm that no one has posted under two different names for the sole puropse of extracting the michael!! As far a I can say, i regard peoples opinions important, but as you may be aware I will not always agree - and stand firm on my belief - even if to some they are deluded and wrong - such is life. There are times when it has been necessary for some, and perhaps more than you imagine to use other names for what ever reason. If Freddie is so free to disclose peoples personal details, for one - what level is he prepared to go for others. Its is a fact, than when talking to freddie a while ago, i asked him the question 'would I know Eneida' which is a fair question to ask. He replied perhaps not but i will tell you where she lives - and he proceeded to describe your house with the very distinctive boundary you have. I do really now wonder what delights he has passed about by others to others. If you all want openness - then why are not full details equal to other posters be disclosed like who they work for, club affiliations, political parties, what business they are from, the list is endless. The main problem is that for most there is total anonymity and you can feel free to say contravertial things with out a second thought. So why can't that privilege be given to others. Just because they have connections with a business shouldn't infringe on their personal comments. Remember as freddie says the web is managed carefully, and if you read the statement above all pages they are carefully vetted for that reason. I don't know about others, but I specifically requested that I use another name for very good and valid reasons. The editor using his descretion argeed. End of. Its a funny thing - I was only posting on a very simple point about the website,with no hidden business agenda at all, which I know is a particular favouriate of yours, and only sought to find out who could provide this information. The above named person, with an obvious agenda has created this situation. It really seems like shoot the messenger, and no answers need be given!!. If you wish to live in a so called democracy, where it is ok for some, but not others i really feel for our future. Perhaps it is good that Freddie no longer fits the criteria to stand as a councillor (he neither works or lives here anymore). I am sure that he has done excellent work in some areas, and I do not wish to undermine his committment while there, but my God do I doubt his integrity. If you want to find out someone mickey-Taking try looking at the posting where he makes condercending remarks for fun to draw out people, and then muck spread just like the 'gentlemen' he referred to with shot gun pellets!! Sometimes shooting wide of the mark with his assumptions of why someone posts what they do. I think the whole episode is his version of taking the P*ss. remember he still hasn't answered the very simple question. Perhaps someone else can! Candyfloss

Re: Mickey-Taking - Dick (4th Jul 2007 - 19:55:38) I wouldn't for one minute masquerade as someone else. Yours sincerely Barbara Streisand

Re: Mickey-Taking - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 20:08:16) Dick, trying hard to see how you can turn this into some magical float this year!!. would have to be on a comedy theme?? Transvestite singers perhaps!!

Re: Mickey-Taking - Eneida (4th Jul 2007 - 21:58:27) Well Candyfloss/Sue/Marry Poppins/Whoever If the Editor doesn't mind people pretending to be other people and answering their own posts why not go the whole hog? Why not invent several other characters, than you can 'all' rubbish the big S or anything else that takes your fancy and you'll 'all' agree with each other!!! I'm sure you'll find that tremendous fun and very meaningfull...you could even have the whole debate in verse form....just a thought. On the subject of my 'distinctive fence' revealed to you by Freddie....in the interests of fair play, I should mention that I described it myself on this web site sometime ago.....but what am I thinking of...who cares about fair play!!!! Eneida

Re: Mickey-Taking - candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 01:22:48) What ever your personal view point of me is not of particular interest. What is? The whole of liphook as a community. The question asked on the council thread was entirely a personal one and no hidden agenda. It was purely straight forward to try to establish who could provide the information that many including yourself wanted to know. If by doing that it revealed someone elses desire to 'get their own back' for what ever reason - obviously as a Counillor (now ex) I could not have stopped him. On posting under a second name - it was never as said before to undermine - take the mickey or anything spiteful, sometimes things need a little push, I do not have influential friends or such who I could call upon to do so - am left with the only possible resource - ME. do you seriously think that all postings here are genuine? what about Moley Smoke, Mammal, little m - they all have constructive personal points - but wish to remain unknown. There are a number of 'I have it on good authority' etc oh yeah. Like the Lidl thread, not one councillor I have spoken to has heard a dickie bird - the first you would have thought to know. Maybe it will turn out to be true - I wont hold my breath. Just because I have said things that you do not agree with in a maner you dislike - doesn't mean that what i say is worthless and not important. If you are happy that plans are broken by anyone, why do we have a system of applications at all. They should also be applied to equally - not as in some cases left for years with just the occasional rap around the knuckles! even the mighty Freddie said it is important to make 'S' abide by the rules - but no disrespect to any of them - it is, has, and continues to be so until they try just a bit harder!! I will just say that for those of you who may think I also posted under 'L' - I did not - it just shows that there are more than a few who regard some of the activities within the parish office to be a little suspect, and with the recent posting of one current memeber to an ex - much more than I ever expected!! I am sure as a woman of strong convictions and opinions, if the council had made a decision that could effect your position in life, but clearly stated it would not, and months later it transpired did - would you just accept it? I hope I would never say that you were not worth fighting for as you were not much good in the first place!! I would come out in support - or would have. The one thing this has taught me - never try to help others they will not thank you for it. Me, myself and I are doing quite fine, Mary Poppins can be left for someone else - because in the future I am sure someone else may find a reason to use it!! Candyfloss

Re: Mickey-Taking - Eneida (5th Jul 2007 - 10:13:24) Candyfloss, We are, obviously, at cross purposes here. I started a separate thread especially because I WAS NOT commenting on Sainsburys Planning application/the Parish Council's behaviour/Freddie Dawkins. My point was and still is, that I don't think it's right for people to pretend to be someone else and answer their own posts. Even if it's allowed, to me, it's still deceitful...call me old-fashioned!! The fact that someone uses a 'nickname' doesn't mean their post isn't genuine or valuable, but that's another matter. What I find really puzzling is why you thought calling yourself 'Candyfloss' would help your cause with Sainsburys? You seemed to be doing pretty well as Sue Woods, a respected local shopkeeper, with lots of people supporting you IMO. BTW I'm quite certain nobody thought you were also 'L'. Eneida

Re: Mickey-Taking - liz (5th Jul 2007 - 13:05:30) Candyfloss From my experience it seems that you might as well use as many false ID's as you like because even if you don't it seems there is always some muppet who will accuse you of dishonesty or posting under other names with absolutely no evidence, reason or justification whatsoever!

Re: Mickey-Taking - Candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 18:21:09) eneida Yes you are totally correct in everything you say, i totally agree with your postings, and am humble in your infinate knowledge of things and people - excellent content and such an inspiration for others to follow Well done Love you lots Candyfloss LiZ I do so strongly believe YOU, everything you say is fair, honest and only judgemental when you see fit. A shining example - keep it up girl and hope you achieve your goals Extra love to you Candyfloss,

Re: Mickey-Taking - Eneida (5th Jul 2007 - 18:37:59) Candyfloss, Have you been at the gin ??? :D Eneida

Re: Mickey-Taking - Candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 18:46:42) eneida If that is what you perceive it must be so.

Re: Mickey-Taking - Dick (5th Jul 2007 - 19:12:56) Candyfloss, I am no muppett... Yours sincerely Fozzie Bear

Re: Mickey-Taking - Candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 20:20:52) Too true Dick Francess

Re: Mickey-Taking - liz (9th Jul 2007 - 08:32:37) Candyfloss Well you DID have some supporters......

Re: Mickey-Taking - Elvis Presley (9th Jul 2007 - 12:52:00) I wanted to state for the record that I have never posted under a pseudonyn and I have nothing but contempt for those who do! Elvis

Re: Mickey-Taking - Marilyn Monroe (9th Jul 2007 - 12:52:30) Neither have I. Marilyn

Re: Mickey-Taking - Tony Blair (19th Jul 2007 - 23:23:17) I heartily agree. Gissa job!

Re: Mickey-Taking - barbara (20th Jul 2007 - 11:16:04) I totally agree with eneida on this one. If you notice on the space following" your name" it says real names only. Why are you too frightened of people finding out who you are? If you have an opinion do you therefore think it cannot be valid if it is followed by your real name? I hope that freedom of speech has not diminished that much, in order to make us so scared of each others thoughts! A posting should be genuine and honest and please at least only use one name throughout the website.

Re: Mickey-Taking - L.H. (20th Jul 2007 - 18:42:44) Barbara Yes there is a danger in posting true feelings using peoples names - there are those who retaliate in the most undesirable way - causing hurt and upset for those with a different point of view, and using it to air their differences away from this site (i.e. the two rucking council members spring to mind) That surely should not happen but it does. There are some who have blatantly crossed the line of defamation of character to suit their purpose and twist the reasons to suit themselves, people have had to have postings removed because of retribtion. This is not something just recent either!! a few years ago one poster only employed a particular person that someone else had a dislike to and did their level best to ruin them and their business. There are some who are just not in control of their feelings enough to leave it to postings and have to come out in person and make demands and even threats. trust me there are some people who do not stop at words to 'get their point across'. there is more to this but I really can not say here - otherwise I will fall into the same trap!. Unfortunately there are those who seem to print what they like and some are all to quick to condemn, without knowing the full background! Perhaps one day when I speak to you I will fill you in on the gaps. (that is if you are Barbara on the council). Enough said

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home