Suggestions, problems and queries.

[Yorkie]

I am not making any further comment.  I wanted to let the matter rest but had to feed the hounds who demanded blood.  However it is interesting that when I first posted, I received a private communication and in a list of 3 suggested names, Ian's name was included.

If it was not Ian then, my evidence is incorrect, but someone needs to be accountable.

Sorry, no apology, as my evidence was based on reasonable grounds, and I felt it necessary to voice them.

End of.

[Ian]

If it was not Ian then, my evidence is incorrect, but someone needs to be accountable.

Sorry, no apology, as my evidence was based on reasonable grounds, and I felt it necessary to voice them.

Well, post the 'evidence' in here. Dave and I are very happy for you to do it. If you have clear and incontrovertible evidence then you should post it. That's all we're asking. What are the 'reasonable grounds'? Identify them, so we can all see.

And yes, someone needs to be accountable;  I agree. But you should take care that it won't become you.

You cannot post accusations on a forum without evidence. If you do, and you don't support them you run the risk of being seen as malicious, or worse. I say again: post the evidence or apologise and withdraw them.

[DaveR]

However it is interesting that when I first posted, I received a private communication and in a list of 3 suggested names, Ian's name was included.

So you based a very serious accusation on a message you received with a random list of names in it? Someone's been playing you for a fool, Yorkie, and I'm surprised that you allowed yourself to be taken in like that. They are no doubt sympathising with you publicly, but laughing their socks off in private at the pickle you have got yourself into. 

[Yorkie]

If it was not Ian then, my evidence is incorrect, but someone needs to be accountable.

Sorry, no apology, as my evidence was based on reasonable grounds, and I felt it necessary to voice them.

Well, post the 'evidence' in here. Dave and I are very happy for you to do it. If you have clear and incontrovertible evidence then you should post it. That's all we're asking. What are the 'reasonable grounds'? Identify them, so we can all see.

And yes, someone needs to be accountable;  I agree. But you should take care that it won't become you.

You cannot post accusations on a forum without evidence. If you do, and you don't support them you run the risk of being seen as malicious, or worse. I say again: post the evidence or apologise and withdraw them.

I cannot post the evidence as most of it is connected with Twitter, and would be a mammoth task.
So in order to keep the peace, not to upset the Forum or its Members, and because I am not vindictive or malicious or, as you say, worse, I offer Ian an apology. 

My feelings at the time were running high and maybe, just maybe, I reached the wrong conclusion.  In order to satisfy myself I will now be taking the advice offered and reporting the matter to the Police, who I suspect will be unable to do anything.  And also taking the whole matter of the postings and copyright issue up with Twitter.  This I have done before when I was impersonated by name and images.

Ian, I am sorry, I withdraw the allegations.

[DaveR]

That's the right thing to do, Yorkie. 

[Ian]

Thank you, Yorkie.  I accept your apology and will eradicate the posting in question.

[Yorkie]

So you based a very serious accusation on a message you received with a random list of names in it? Someone's been playing you for a fool, Yorkie, and I'm surprised that you allowed yourself to be taken in like that. They are no doubt sympathising with you publicly, but laughing their socks off in private at the pickle you have got yourself into. 

No, once again you are incorrect.  I already had the name.  I did not base any of my details on the names given to me.  I am not easily taken in, certainly with something as serious as this.

Funnily enough the Member, who I will name if you wish, included DaveR as one of the other two names he suggested.  Maybe he will confess to you himself and save me the problem of again protecting someone else.

Just think if everyone had let things lie as I wanted to, all this bandwidth could have been saved.

[DaveR]

Funnily enough the Member, who I will name if you wish, included DaveR as one of the other two names he suggested.  Maybe he will confess to you himself and save me the problem of again protecting someone else.

Please do.

[Yorkie]

Funnily enough the Member, who I will name if you wish, included DaveR as one of the other two names he suggested.  Maybe he will confess to you himself and save me the problem of again protecting someone else.

Please do.

So you are asking me to compromise another Member who was only asking if my post referred to some particular individuals?  My loyalties lie much deeper than that, and as they have, in fact, not done anything wrong, broken the rules or otherwise committed a sin, I regret I am unable to grant your wish on this occasion.  I hope that in similar circumstances, I would also receive their loyalty and protection.  Perhaps, in retrospect, I should not have made the offer

I also, cannot see what, if any, satisfaction you would get from knowing.

I m sure you will understand, and let sleeping dogs lie, in order that this episode can be brought to an amicable close.

[Merddin Emrys]

This has been one of the most puzzling things I have seen on here, I can't see any logic behind any of it, all very strange? I am pleased to see an amicable ending to it though!

[Ian]

I am not easily taken in, certainly with something as serious as this.

But you have been. Dave R is spot on. Someone has set out to cause a lot of trouble for you, and they seem to have succeeded.

Funnily enough the Member, who I will name if you wish, included DaveR as one of the other two names he suggested...So you are asking me to compromise another Member who was only asking if my post referred to some particular individuals?  My loyalties lie much deeper than that...

But not, apparently, deep enough to trust the administrators of this forum?

It's also interesting that you originally said 'who is trusted with the forum profiles and passwords'. There are two issues there: firstly there's nothing on your profile other than the  email address with which you originally registered.  Secondly, and rather crucial - we don't know anyone's passwords. All user passwords are encrypted and not viewable or retrievable by either of us. That's why if someone loses their password and can't get it sent to their email address they have to re-register.

Three things have happened in rapid succession this past few days: someone - clearly with a lot more time on their hands than I - has been causing you a lot of problems. I believe the 'lot of time on their hands' qualifier is the important bit. You're almost certainly looking for someone who has plenty of time, is an avid Twitter and Oscar user, and someone who might possibly bear you some sort of grudge. Secondly, Oscar has closed, although not for the first time, and thirdly one member openly asked for his membership to be deleted. Is it, d'you think within the realms of possibility that there's some sort of connection?

Posting under pseudonyms is not something either Dave or I do. It's not our style. Neither of us believe you can run a forum based on deceit. I strongly suggest you apply your not inconsiderable energies and abilities to finding the IP addresses of those doing it. Dave and I would be prepared to help you as well, but you need to post what you know in here.

[Fester]

Just on the pier, posting from my iphone...

For the record, it was me who during a game of Scrabble with Yorkie asked him who he thought was stalking him. (Having read the forum posts 2 nights ago)
Yorkie did not want to name and shame, but I asked again.

In that text I (jokingly) said 'who do you think it is?  Ollerton?  Ian?? SDQ??  Dave R???

I thought it best to mention that here, as I have no agenda, and am pretty much out of my depth with the Twitter/Oscar stuff.... and have not seen any of it.

Right, back to sleep.

[Ian]

I thought it best to mention that here, as I have no agenda, and am pretty much out of my depth with the Twitter/Oscar stuff.... and have not seen any of it.

Neither have I, although my curiosity is now almost piqued enough. But your mention of 'agenda' is important.  Someone has clearly got some sort of agenda and possibly long-standing grudge against Y.

The good news is that no one can hide on the internet. Even so-called 'experts' have been caught out, so this person can be found. For the record, Y - I wish you well in locating him.  It's not pleasant when someone sets out to give you a very hard time.

[SDQ]

Just on the pier, posting from my iphone...

For the record, it was me who during a game of Scrabble with Yorkie asked him who he thought was stalking him. (Having read the forum posts 2 nights ago)
Yorkie did not want to name and shame, but I asked again.

In that text I (jokingly) said 'who do you think it is?  Ollerton?  Ian?? SDQ??  Dave R???

I thought it best to mention that here, as I have no agenda, and am pretty much out of my depth with the Twitter/Oscar stuff.... and have not seen any of it.

Right, back to sleep.

Yay! I made it on to 'The List'!

[born2run]

Just on the pier, posting from my iphone...

For the record, it was me who during a game of Scrabble with Yorkie asked him who he thought was stalking him. (Having read the forum posts 2 nights ago)
Yorkie did not want to name and shame, but I asked again.

In that text I (jokingly) said 'who do you think it is?  Ollerton?  Ian?? SDQ??  Dave R???

I thought it best to mention that here, as I have no agenda, and am pretty much out of my depth with the Twitter/Oscar stuff.... and have not seen any of it.

Right, back to sleep.

Yay! I made it on to 'The List'!

snubbed