AndyRM
Elder Goth
This. 100% this.
Why would anyone bother with an alter on this little slice of the internet?
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
This. 100% this.
Why would anyone bother with an alter on this little slice of the internet?
AuroraSaab
Squire
To present a legal authority figure to the forum to add weight to their opinions. To seek to undermine other posters evidence and opinions by presenting that ficticious authority as unquestionable. To influence casual readers and discourage them from understanding the law as it currently is.
For people that seem concerned about disinformation on X, the news, and other outlets, you're very quick to take postings on a forum at face value.
In general I think women especially are ill advised to take people at face value. It often doesn't end well.
For people that seem concerned about disinformation on X, the news, and other outlets, you're very quick to take postings on a forum at face value.
In general I think women especially are ill advised to take people at face value. It often doesn't end well.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
There are no casual readers here. Certainly none who come to this circular thread.
The reason people are concerned about disinformation is pretty obvious. Nobody is splicing things from NCAP to prove a point (other than on here which is either funny or daft).
Personally I take folk at face value. If you don't then that's up to you.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Can't answer that, but if you look a N's progress over the course of this thread, it does appear they've made remarkable progress in their legal career.
monkers
Legendary Member
At least she has something worthwhile to say, more than can ever be said for you. Bobzyaforumsniper.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
How? Any evidence?
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Look through the references to N on this thread. I can't be arsed to trawl through it for you. @monkers hasn't denied my assertion.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Monkers has mentioned her niece since the start of this thread, both because of her gender history and her legal experience.
It is clear that there is no love lost between you and Monkers but it diminishes you to raise the idea that it is a fiction by Monkers without any proof/evidence to back up your assumption.
One could just as well make the assumption that it is convenient of you to invent this theory rather than having to argue with someone who actually has a practical understanding of the law around gender classification rather than a Google based interpretation of the law.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
You make the assertion you prove it or people will draw the obvious conclusion about the CBA.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
Yet you accept Monkers presentation of the hot shot Strasbourg human rights expert niece with no demand for evidence that they exist whatsoever.
They post in exactly the same pompous way, same 'voice', same grammar errors. They use the same account - you'd think it would be easier to start their own - and didn't even get the date of the anniversary of the UN Human Rights Declaration correct.
Again, you accept the postings of the niece without evidence but presume my posts - often links to verified experts like well known law professors - are 'Google based interpretations of the law'.
The arguments stand on their own merits regardless of who makes them of course, but I'm not going to be party to pretending someone is somebody they aren't. You can if you like.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
If my niece were a transwoman and swimming in a relatively small professional pool I'd be careful with references to them in any public discussion as there's a risk of jigsaw identification to them in real life.
In a very small way I was able to identify @Pale Rider of this parish as somebody who posted under a different name in another forum.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Same with you on Mumsnet. Your advice to the woman who saw a naked man on a bike whilst out with her 5 year old was on brand I thought.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Hot shot?
I accept that everyone on this forum is genuine, even those whom I consider a PiTA, until there is more than just a hunch that they are not, based on nothing more than some "grammar/style" assumption that is so vague as to be meaningless. I find it perfectly believable that N would use Monkers' account if she just intends getting involved in this specific thread for personal reasons. I would do the same if a close relative was involved in an acrimonious thread on a different forum for which they required my professional knowledge and personal experience.
Links to experts, verified or not, are the very definition of Google expertise. And for every expert with one view an expert with a different view can be selected.
I will continue to believe that people on this forum are who they say they are until demonstrated otherwise by more than a shot-in-the-dark assumption.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It's not a shot in the dark, Rusty, but as I say the arguments stand on their own merit. I'm just not joining in the pretence.
'Unverified' is accepting the posts of someone whom you have no idea whether they exist or not but yet dismissing the analysis of a real life verified legal expert or academic just because it's on Twitter.
'Unverified' is accepting the posts of someone whom you have no idea whether they exist or not but yet dismissing the analysis of a real life verified legal expert or academic just because it's on Twitter.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
The actual date was 10 December 1948 - it was the second Friday of that month. The 10 December 2023 was a Sunday. The 75th Anniversay celebrations were held on the second Friday of December 2023. N was at home or otherwise with me (I was in hospital) , she missed the celebrations being held in her office on Friday 15th because of that.
I'd rather sound pompous than needy.
Last edited:
