Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You've shown nothing of the sort. Good job this is a single-figure-posters bike forum where all these fibs go unnoticed.

I've never seen anybody suggest you live in squalor btw. You're on a teacher's pension I assume. The teachers pension scheme is very generous compared to most so I expect you're on a very comfortable income compared to most of the retired population. 'You live in a small flat' is really the paper cut of personal abuse compared to what you've said about people on here.

So you will say, but so the record now shows.

 

[classic33]

You've shown nothing of the sort. Good job this is a single-figure-posters bike forum where all these fibs go unnoticed.

I've never seen anybody suggest you live in squalor btw. You're on a teacher's pension I assume. The teachers pension scheme is very generous compared to most so I expect you're on a very comfortable income compared to most of the retired population. 'You live in a small flat' is really the paper cut of personal abuse compared to what you've said about people on here.

We passed the single figure for poster's on here within the first four days. I believe we've been into triple figures for nearly two years.
As aside, poster numbers may be low, but some nights the guest figures are into four figure numbers. That doesn't include any bots that are on the site.

As for blatant lie telling you're ahead of anyone else on this thread, in that respect. Youve tried deception, misrepresentation and simply outright lying.


M.G.G.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're on ignore, Classic, but I have the misfortune of seeing your posts occasionally before I log in.

What does MGG mean? I'd like you to explain it to the forum as you have used it in posts about me several times now and Monica has Liked it so apparently they believe it to be true too.

Let's hear it.

Your friend Barbie Khardashian seems to be doing better since they were moved to the appropriate jail by the way. Win for Barbie, win for the women in Limerick's women's jail.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/iri...ians-behaviour-improved-dramatically-31317404

 

[classic33]

You're on ignore, Classic, but I have the misfortune of seeing your posts occasionally before I log in.

What does MGG mean? I'd like you to explain it to the forum as you have used it in posts about me several times now and Monica has Liked it so apparently they believe it to be true too.

Let's hear it.

Your friend Barbie Khardashian seems to be doing better since they were moved to the appropriate jail by the way. Win for Barbie, win for the women in Limerick's women's jail.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/iri...ians-behaviour-improved-dramatically-31317404

She and two other women, deemed to violent for the women's section of Limerick Prison, are in the same building she was in when in the women's section.
The only difference being the building was placed under control of the men's section. No actual move involved, just the change of ownership of the building. To the detriment of the women's section.
Both sections are within the same outer wall of Limerick Prison.

Why don't you explain it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're using it in reference to me. Surely you should explain it to us? There were several results when I googled it so why don't you let us know which one you had in mind?

BK is in the male wing. With other male prisoners. With male prison officers. They seem to be doing better there. Perhaps it'll be safer for them to socialise with other prisoners now, which will improve their mental health. You should be pleased.

 

[icowden]

Within one minute of your demand, I copied the email in full and published it.

Sorry, but you didn't do this. You only copied the body of the text. Two people suggested that this had been taken from the internet and not from an email and asked you to post the header of the e-mail. You have avoided doing this (you could redact your personal e-mail address) which to some people suggests that you don't actually have an e-mail.

 

[monkers]

Sorry, but you didn't do this. You only copied the body of the text. Two people suggested that this had been taken from the internet and not from an email and asked you to post the header of the e-mail. You have avoided doing this (you could redact your personal e-mail address) which to some people suggests that you don't actually have an e-mail.

You are oblivious. And so this harassment goes on. Well done for adding your name to it.

I had said that Stock had made a 'call to arms' plea to academics. I later admitted I was in error about the title - 'a call to arms' was how the article had become known. I corrected my error as soon as I realised - it was called 'This Is Not A Drill'.

This was denied. I later said I had it in my INBOX. On demand, I copied it within one minute. It was denied that it was genuine - as if one minute was enough time for me to fabricate an email and copy it here. Then AS found something the next day, but was a copy of an article that appeared a day later on Medium but the date references and difference in text justification show that it wasn't my email.

Then it was claimed that I had just copied it from Medium despite AS saying it is no longer available. You can't make this up can you?

Then it was claimed that nobody on Twitter had seen it - like how could she know? Then I showed that Rowling had referred to it in a Tweet.

Frankly it doesn't matter where I produced it from. I proved it did exist. I proved that the date was the 18th December as I had said - the day that Judge Taylor dismissed Maya Forstater's complaint at the employment hearing.

They have not managed to find another source on the internet. There's no basis to allege that I could not have received it. I'm not on trial, the article 'This Is Not A Drill clearly did exist as I had said.

If I was to copy the header from my INBOX, I'd be publishing Stock's email address. If I do that they will criticize it, or otherwise claim that it's faked or photoshopped. I am not publishing anyone else's email address here without their permission, or for that matter my own.

This is a distraction of course, but the real issue is that Stock did write the article 'This Is Not A Drill' - this is the call sign for an world ending emergency, though it may also be a band name for all I know. This moral panic article all because a judge did not agree with Forstater that she should be surprised that the company she worked for were not impressed with paying for her time to send 30 or 40 Tweets and messages each day about what she thinks of trans people.

Imagine being a trans person working in that office with that background - would you not think it harassment? Imagine working hours in an office when one member of staff is on their phone all day working their Twitter account. I don't happen to know if any any trans people worked with her - but it was her colleagues that complained to management, not trans-activists which is the usual false cry.

The two dimwits instead of recognising that they are in error, are now distracting with personal slurs. Now I see you want to join in with defending the indefensible. Stock produced the article, she published it, there was a letter of response from the academic world, which wasn't sent to me, I assume because I wasn't a signatory to it. Later on after receiving the OBE, 600 academics publicly condemned her actions. I had that and published it here. Stock later claimed that because these 600, the majority of people in her workplace, students at the University where she worked, and her own trade union condemned her actions. Stock called this 'mob rule'.



The end.

 

[icowden]

You are oblivious. And so this harassment goes on. Well done for adding your name to it.

Again nope. No harrassment. You were asked to produce something to substantiate a claim and you didn't do it. You could have posted the header and redacted elements of the email addresses. You chose not to.

As for Stock, much of what you posted above seems to have been made up.

“There were no substantive allegations of wrongdoing made against her. Prof Stock leaves the University of Sussex with our gratitude for her significant contributions as a teacher and academic. Prof Stock’s successes in the field of philosophy have been of great benefit to the university. Her departure is a loss.”

Michelle Donelan, the universities minister for England, said: “It is absolutely appalling that the toxic environment at the University of Sussex has made it untenable for Prof Kathleen Stock to continue in her position there. No academic should ever have to fear for their personal safety.”

The University supported her, she was not accused of wrong doing. She chose to leave because of the general antagonism towards her for daring to have an opinion different to the zeitgeist.

 

[monkers]

Again nope. No harrassment. You were asked to produce something to substantiate a claim and you didn't do it. You could have posted the header and redacted elements of the email addresses. You chose not to.

As for Stock, much of what you posted above seems to have been made up.


The University supported her, she was not accused of wrong doing. She chose to leave because of the general antagonism towards her for daring to have an opinion different to the zeitgeist.

It is an unnecessary request Ian. The document that they said did not exist, does exist. AS found a reference to it in Medium. I found a reference of Rowling referencing it. I copied it in full without modification from my INBOX.

The article exists.

I am unwell at the moment. My niece is here to be with me. I've had enough of you idiots. Further replies are from her in my name.

 

[monkers]

Again nope. No harrassment. You were asked to produce something to substantiate a claim and you didn't do it. You could have posted the header and redacted elements of the email addresses. You chose not to.

As for Stock, much of what you posted above seems to have been made up.


The University supported her, she was not accused of wrong doing. She chose to leave because of the general antagonism towards her for daring to have an opinion different to the zeitgeist.

Mr Cowden.

You have had sight of the original document received by my aunt. You have had sight of an image of a very similar document posted by AS, different only in the references to the dates. You have seen a reference made by JK Rowling on her Twitter account. Do you dispute these as material facts?

I understand that your professional work is along the lines of a patient data manager for the NHS? If this is so, then I should not be in the position of having to remind you that sovereign law prevents the publication of private data by those with a professional capacity. Also that doxxing is very bad form.

Please can you kindly explain the reason for your contributions that could be argued as incitement to commit an offence? I feel quite certain that your ultimate employer, the NHS, would be concerned to see you acting in this manner.

 

[newfhouse]

You could have posted the header and redacted elements of the email addresses. You chose not to.

This is silly. We both know it would have been derided as a fake.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

This is silly.

Not as silly as this. Which is both silly and sinister. And definitely not posted by @monkers obviously.

Please can you kindly explain the reason for your contributions that could be argued as incitement to commit an offence? I feel quite certain that your ultimate employer, the NHS, would be concerned to see you acting in this manner.

 

[newfhouse]

Not as silly as this.

I agree that's daft too.

 

[AndyRM]

Today's front page of the Mail.

Lovely stuff.

 

[monkers]

We can decide what is silly and what is not when Mr Cowden finds the courage to reply.