They do like us

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Why did Rickler have to be a mod to offer legal advice?

Because he could then put his suggestions to all of us in the mod room together and we could discuss. He has never acted as a mod.

GOB similarly, was co-opted by admin, as was Rickler.

I've heard that Frank Bullitt will be making a statement later today, as someone not 'involved' but trying to keep the peace and to ensure that accusations of bullying or illegal access to admin etc are put to bed once and for all.
It's the old trick of throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.
I have nothing to hide and done nothing wrong.
The truth will come out, one way or another.

He has never acted as a mod.. So then would you care to comment on Ricker's own admission that he edited one of Cerbrera's posts?

I think Rickler has explained that earlier. Have a look back and see what happened.

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Why did Rickler have to be a mod to offer legal advice?

Because he could then put his suggestions to all of us in the mod room together and we could discuss. He has never acted as a mod.

GOB similarly, was co-opted by admin, as was Rickler.

I've heard that Frank Bullitt will be making a statement later today, as someone not 'involved' but trying to keep the peace and to ensure that accusations of bullying or illegal access to admin etc are put to bed once and for all.
It's the old trick of throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.
I have nothing to hide and done nothing wrong.
The truth will come out, one way or another.

He has never acted as a mod.. So then would you care to comment on Ricker's own admission that he edited one of Cerbrera's posts?

I think Rickler has explained that earlier. Have a look back and see what happened.

He has yes. But he still acted as a mod, who had mod priveliges.

So why have you said he didn't act as a mod?

Just because he explained it, doesn't mean it is right.

Greenjock wrote:

Mrrapson wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Why did Rickler have to be a mod to offer legal advice?

He didn't did he, it's a convenient excuse to cover the fact that in real terms try are not better than what they accuse Ian of!

Really Leigh? No better than Ian?

Is twelve hours waiting for a reply still being impatient?

There are several problems with your reply Leigh. Firstly the Newell Files did not originate from Tring or Rickler, I know that, so how did they falsify it? Ian Newell did property searches on Ricklers home address in Los Angeles, as you do to pass the time when you are ever so slightly deranged, had numerous photographs of him, to masturbate over is your answer, I would say as part of a "hit list" which included several other ATD posters, so that he could point these people out to others if the time arose, andhe DID order or ask for a friend to "hit" Ricklers e-mail account, and asked for an explanation of what the hit was, and was told that once he logs in to it, he wouldn't be able to log out.

Now you can turn a blind eye to it all if you like, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I spoke to a very good friend of Newell's for over an hour on the telephone recently, who told me that in "real life" he was a great bloke, but when it came to the internet he was an obsessive and I believe the the word used to describe Ian Newell on the internet was a dickhead.

You also say that you don't know that he set up the spoof site ADT, which portrayed people on this site as paedophiles, into gay bondage, one female poster who contributes to the Argyle program free of charge as a whore, and had a picture of a swimming pig which was said to be Trings wife. So excuse me if Tring and Rickler aren't his biggest fans, but I can totally understand why that might be. This isn't assumption on my part, he had screenshots of the site before it had the abusive posts put on it. You don't have to take my word for it either, the Newell Files site had over 2,000 hits on it so there are plenty of others who will confirm this. And before you ask, no it wasn't me who set up the Newell Files either. I hadn't heard of Flickr before it had been published and wouldn't know where to start to go about setting up a blog. I was contacted by the instigator as I was one of the people who's private details were stored by Mr Newell. Obviously because we are such close friends I suppose?

Knecht has answered your point about the information being stored on a PRIVATE account, which was set to allow PUBLIC viewing Leigh, and anyway doesn't answer the small matter of why he had this information stored in the first place.

And I'm sorry that I estimated his Pasoti accounts at 50+ because I couldn't remember the exact amount shown on The Newell Files, but I know it was around 60.

Why don't you ask your buddy to explain some or all of this when he contacts you next? I'm sure it would be fun to hear his excuses and watch him sweating in this cool weather.

Leigh if you want to brand people madmen or nutters or whatever, please don't forget our friend Mr Newell, because he is the head honcho in the sandwich short of a picnic brigade, but then that doesn't fit in with your agenda does it?

I'm not saying that Tring or Rickler are totally blameless in all this shit that goes on between ATD and Pasoti, but they sure as shit have been provoked to say the least.

And as for him doing so much more for the club than I ever will, I don't dispute that at all, but he's also carried out an awful lot more devious and underhand crap than I would ever have even been able to think up and wouldn't dream of doing. A bit like saying that Adolf Hitler did an awful lot more for the German motorway infrastructure by introducing the autobahns to the country, than I ever will. And I don't dispute that either Leigh.

_________________

GJ the short answer is I cant be arsed to reply. You can be just as obsessive as Rickler and co. I know from your pm'd that your not actually a bad bloke.

Tring and Rickler have got lots of shit that sticks, my advice, cut them lose and let them fend for theirselves. As with Ian, they made their beds and they need to lie in it. Or in ricklers case his rocky chair.

I'm far more obsessive than Rickler ffs. He's like a poodle compared to me

So you can't be arsed, but in your heart of hearts you know that what I have pointed out isn't exactly the actions of a good guy, and what Tring and Rickler are accused of and have got up to in the past isn't good either, but I don't really think you can be defending Ian's actions and calling them madmen or whatever you said yesterday.

Anyway I was just making sure you hadn't forgotten my posts, sort of a public service I was providing

I might be speaking out of turn but there will be no cutting loose of any ATD poster unless they've broken a site rule. The co-opting was a temporary move (it was before my time) to provide assistance- pasoti do it, the fans trust have done it so I personally don't see it as a big issue.

Rickler's assistance in dealing with the ridiculous legal threats (I only wish I had a flickr account to post a copy of the emails) was valuable for the Mod team. Leigh posted on pasoti some rules for co-opting which included the use of skills to aid the team.

I see ian newell is mentioned- his internet activities are far worse than any of this and yet he still remains a pasoti mod!

Pasoti select their mods by the same method (co-opting) so is this really a big deal? The only issue is whether Tringy made the decision alone or with support from others?

I grew out of playing 'goodies and baddies' a long time ago. That doesn't mean I don't have my views about who did what to whom, with what, why and when. But nobody has come out of this very well. Egos need to be put aside and we need to get on with being members of a good site.

I would add one rider: For months I have had a person to person chat with Chris Webb hanging - we may both get around to it one day. Will that lead me to be accused of being a fifth columnist out to subvert this place?

knecht wrote:

I grew out of playing 'goodies and baddies' a long time ago. That doesn't mean I don't have my views about who did what to whom, with what, why and when. But nobody has come out of this very well. Egos need to be put aside and we need to get on with being members of a good site.

I would add one rider: For months I have had a person to person chat with Chris Webb hanging - we may both get around to it one day. Will that lead me to be accused of being a fifth columnist out to subvert this place?

I'll go one better, you're a sixth columnist

shonbo wrote:

knecht wrote:

I grew out of playing 'goodies and baddies' a long time ago. That doesn't mean I don't have my views about who did what to whom, with what, why and when. But nobody has come out of this very well. Egos need to be put aside and we need to get on with being members of a good site.

I would add one rider: For months I have had a person to person chat with Chris Webb hanging - we may both get around to it one day. Will that lead me to be accused of being a fifth columnist out to subvert this place?

I'll go one better, you're a sixth columnist

Any advance on six?

News of the World columnist

pepsipete wrote:

News of the World columnist

I could sue for that, Pete. I've never been so insulted in all my life!

(Well, I have - often..... )

who the hell is Sue, never heard of her.

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Why did Rickler have to be a mod to offer legal advice?

Because he could then put his suggestions to all of us in the mod room together and we could discuss. He has never acted as a mod.

GOB similarly, was co-opted by admin, as was Rickler.

I've heard that Frank Bullitt will be making a statement later today, as someone not 'involved' but trying to keep the peace and to ensure that accusations of bullying or illegal access to admin etc are put to bed once and for all.
It's the old trick of throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.
I have nothing to hide and done nothing wrong.
The truth will come out, one way or another.

He has never acted as a mod.. So then would you care to comment on Ricker's own admission that he edited one of Cerbrera's posts?

I think Rickler has explained that earlier. Have a look back and see what happened.

He has yes. But he still acted as a mod, who had mod priveliges.

So why have you said he didn't act as a mod?

Just because he explained it, doesn't mean it is right.

Correct.

Moreover Tring has conveniently forgotten to say who this 'Admin' was who co-opted Rickler. The fact remains that it was never put to a mod vote, and if it had my suspicion would be that it would have been voted down.

Rickler had exactly the same mod privileges as the rest of us mods. He edited a post of mine to remove his name. His excuse via PM, was that I didn't need to know why because it was decided long before I was a mod that he should be kept quiet about. He also stated in that or another PM, that as long as he had breath in his body he would do all he could to ensure I would never mod this forum again.

I am still wondering why all this crap was aimed at me, simply because I wouldn't fall out with Ian Newell.

Cerbs, it's the same reason I get grief on here. I like Ian, I like Chris, I'm not even unfond of Postey tbh.

People have take their agendas far too far and like deep throat it has damaged this site. Time for Rickler and tring to fess up and salvage what they can while they can.

Mrrapson wrote:

Cerbs, it's the same reason I get grief on here. I like Ian, I like Chris, I'm not even unfond of Postey tbh.

People have take their agendas far too far and like deep throat it has damaged this site. Time for Rickler and tring to fess up and salvage what they can while they can.

No.

You get grief because you are an idiot, by and large.

You ask pointless questions designed to belittle the Trust, and when proven wrong, you tell us that you are doing it in the best interests of everyone, and all will be revealed later.

Cerbera wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Why did Rickler have to be a mod to offer legal advice?

Because he could then put his suggestions to all of us in the mod room together and we could discuss. He has never acted as a mod.

GOB similarly, was co-opted by admin, as was Rickler.

I've heard that Frank Bullitt will be making a statement later today, as someone not 'involved' but trying to keep the peace and to ensure that accusations of bullying or illegal access to admin etc are put to bed once and for all.
It's the old trick of throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.
I have nothing to hide and done nothing wrong.
The truth will come out, one way or another.

He has never acted as a mod.. So then would you care to comment on Ricker's own admission that he edited one of Cerbrera's posts?

I think Rickler has explained that earlier. Have a look back and see what happened.

He has yes. But he still acted as a mod, who had mod priveliges.

So why have you said he didn't act as a mod?

Just because he explained it, doesn't mean it is right.

Correct.

Moreover Tring has conveniently forgotten to say who this 'Admin' was who co-opted Rickler. The fact remains that it was never put to a mod vote, and if it had my suspicion would be that it would have been voted down.

Rickler had exactly the same mod privileges as the rest of us mods. He edited a post of mine to remove his name. His excuse via PM, was that I didn't need to know why because it was decided long before I was a mod that he should be kept quiet about. He also stated in that or another PM, that as long as he had breath in his body he would do all he could to ensure I would never mod this forum again.

I am still wondering why all this crap was aimed at me, simply because I wouldn't fall out with Ian Newell.

I can confirm that it was Tring that brought both me and Rickler into the mod forum and he sent me a pm to inform me. I was surprised to find afterwards that Tring had done this off his own back and without other moderators being aware. - At that time Tring and I were on very friendly terms and I suspect that he introduced Rickler and I to support his agenda that somewhat back fired on him.

I do tend to agree with Tring's attitude of not wanting an all singing jester hat wearing forum, it's not my style at all, but I also believe that if the majority are all singing jester hat wearers then that majority should have control via a fair process and that is not what has happened.

As for the Cherry Tree Cabal crap, well it's just a jealousy fed by paranoia in my opinion. I have been there twice, the first time I met Cerbs and Mike and this other strange fella from Exeter ....We discussed what a plonker Newell was and how we could move ATD forward, nothing more. The second time I popped into the Cherry Tree I had a natter with Cerbs, Peggy, Merv, Mike and a quick 'hello' to many others that were there. We talked about pretty much everything barring ATD and Ian bloody Newell and pasoti. if I remember right the discussion was about how to give up smoking, a painting that Peggy knocked up, Mervs lack of photography skills and why Brizzo people have no idea of the values of genuine clotted cream!

Contact lenses, don't forget that!

I will accept Frank Bullitt's take on events. The rest is pure mud slinging and Nool's poodles are still at his beck and call.

All he has ever wanted is Rickler and I removed. He found an ally in a mod on here who wanted the same thing. Simples.

Nool has been destroyed and he's desperate to take others with him. Very predictable and very sad and deceitful.

We'll wait to see what Frank says, or failing that until some more hard evidence appears.

I repeat, apart from bringing Symons and Peggy onto admin in a crisis, I have never acted unilaterally with access to admin. Frank will know the truth as he's been here all the time and has not taken sides.
That is why he is a keyholder.

Unfortunately for you though Tring, your story is not consistent with GOB's or my version of events, nor with what you have posted on various threads in open forum.

I see that yet again you are going back on your word to stand aside, despite setting the rules for GOB and myself to do the same, which we have already agreed to.

Shame on you.

I think there are two questions to be answered.
1) Could this co-opting thing be done again behind closed doors?
2) Is it right to confuse a bit of petty squabbling between two personalities that have never and probably will never get on with the direction of this very good discussion site?

Answers;
1) The answer should definitely be no.
2) No.

Cerbera wrote:

Unfortunately for you though Tring, your story is not consistent with GOB's or my version of events, nor with what you have posted on various threads in open forum.

I see that yet again you are going back on your word to stand aside, despite setting the rules for GOB and myself to do the same, which we have already agreed to.

Shame on you.

If you really want hard evidence of what actually was said, I'm sure it can be provided.

GOB tried to get me to stand down with him earlier, with the proviso that you be co-opted first

You were certain you would win any election and now you are bleating because you lost.

What do you want, best out of three ?

Get over it, there's always next year, unless you've taken up Nool's offer of a Pasoti peerage by then.

Tringreen wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Unfortunately for you though Tring, your story is not consistent with GOB's or my version of events, nor with what you have posted on various threads in open forum.

I see that yet again you are going back on your word to stand aside, despite setting the rules for GOB and myself to do the same, which we have already agreed to.

Shame on you.

If you really want hard evidence of what actually was said, I'm sure it can be provided.

GOB tried to get me to stand down with him earlier, with the proviso that you be co-opted first

You were certain you would win any election and now you are bleating because you lost.

What do you want, best out of three ?

Get over it, there's always next year, unless you've taken up Nool's offer of a Pasoti peerage by then.

I will state this once again....


It was agreed with you on several threads in several sections that you would stand down if I did and if Cerbs didn't take an interest.

Those terms were agreed.

You have once again gone back on your word and have changed the goal post to suite your agenda!

Stick to you word Tring!!

Tringreen wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Unfortunately for you though Tring, your story is not consistent with GOB's or my version of events, nor with what you have posted on various threads in open forum.

I see that yet again you are going back on your word to stand aside, despite setting the rules for GOB and myself to do the same, which we have already agreed to.

Shame on you.

If you really want hard evidence of what actually was said, I'm sure it can be provided.

GOB tried to get me to stand down with him earlier, with the proviso that you be co-opted first

You were certain you would win any election and now you are bleating because you lost.

What do you want, best out of three ?

Get over it, there's always next year, unless you've taken up Nool's offer of a Pasoti peerage by then.

To me it seems like you are using Cerbera's loss in the election to deflect heat away from you. It's not working.

Your cyber empire is crashing and burning Tring, stop fiddling and do the honourable thing and walk.

What is that quote 'If you are in a hole.. stop digging' I suggest you take heed of that advice.

Do we know Rickler's editing of your post Cerbs was an isolated incident?

pilgrim_pete wrote:

Do we know Rickler's editing of your post Cerbs was an isolated incident?

No. Somebody keeps editing my posts and putting loads of sweary words in them.