GreenAndy1981 has been a bad boy

Rickler wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Im sure thats not a fag paper between us on this issue.

Tony, When will you be getting your JB lookalike glasses?

Glasses???


I want his hair

Anyones hair, well, human, brown, straight but especially the bits that go on top.

tonycholwell wrote:

Peggy wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

No it was not Rickler (or Tring before you ask).

This is what I predicted in a post about an hour ago:)

Frank should not deal with questions on someone elses account and definetly not on an open forum!

Dispair smiley wherefore art thou:)

No, Tony. This should be dealt with completely out in the open. We should know by now where doing things in private/secret gets us.

As things stand, we have two accounts of what happened, one of which says that a member of this site had their private information handed over without their knowledge or consent.

At the very least, we need to know in full exactly what happened, and the person whose IP was handed over should be informed.

Peggy

I dont disagree with you about getting the facts out in the open, that is right and will lead to trust. What I am clearly argueing for, is that private data should not be bandied about in the open without the persons permission.

If you re read my posts Im sure thats not a fag paper between us on this issue.

If you want to destroy trust then I can't think of a better way on a forum, esp. considering the antagonism between the two sites making the motive very strange, I could understand more if St Lukes were going to lose out but that was never the case and despite asking this question it's not been answered, which kinda highlights the question even more.

GOB wrote:

If you want to destroy trust then I can't think of a better way on a forum, esp. considering the antagonism between the two sites making the motive very strange, I could understand more if St Lukes were going to lose out but that was never the case and despite asking this question it's not been answered, which kinda highlights the question even more.

Yes, I don't understand the logic where the hugely appreciated St Lukes of this city has or would have lost out any money from this not very nice person.

I don't get it at all.... I've looked over there, but can see no logic behind statements of loss or logic of potential loss.
Tony, you're an avid contributor of Pasoti, can you point me in the right direction ?

From Postey on pasoti..

Quote :

Apologies to Pasoti users for boring the pants off you but Frank Bullitt on ATD needs to know the facts. I have PM's to prove all this.....

1: We all know what happened with Green Andy.
2: Out of the blue ATD Mod Charlie Wood sent me a Pasoti PM and asked if he could help track down Green Andy and he had a suspect who was a member of ATD. Charlie asked for the IP number of Green Andy and he would see if there was a match.
I replied with part of Green Andy's IP number and his Internet Service Provider, I said "any help appreciated", Charlie replied back with the full IP number of his ATD suspect, the numbers didn't match and that was the end of it - just two Mods from different websites trying to track down Green Andy - a Pasoti person who has caused so much trouble.

3: On Saturday morning Knecht - a Mod on ATD - posts that it would be good if a Pasoti Mod posted in public that an ATD Mod tried to help find Green Andy.
So I did this and recognised the help from ATD, although I didn't mention Charlie by name, his name was posted on ATD.

4: Charlie then receives unfair criticism from the members of ATD for his part in this.

5: This would have been the end of it but Frank Bullitt, a Mod on ATD, then accuses me of giving away Green Andy's IP number and abusing my position with access to that IP number.
Just to be clear, after being approached by Charlie I gave away the first part (not the full number) of Green Andy's IP number and ISP to Charlie who attempted to find a match to his suspect, Charlie replied with the full IP number of his suspect and there was no match.
And that's it, apart from me and Charlie being hung out to dry for no reason at all.

While I'm at it - Green Jock - I've never been on a GT coach.

Nice to see Charlie's prepared to help out by providing an ATD members IP, not only did Charlie fail to match the IP from pasoti, he then very kindly picked a random suspect and provided that persons IP to pasoti - Have I got this right? Charlie?

WTF is going on here?

I was just thinking exactly the same as Penz. Say St Luke's ends up with £100 and not the falsely bid £1000. Nobody has actually ripped £900 out of their bank account have they? I'm not defending what was done and I'm as appalled by it as anybody else but nobody has actually lost any real cash here. I also suspect that the suspected false bidder might well have been suspected to have links overseas but the cross-checking proved that not to be the case. And I refer to neither Tring nor Rickler.

I thought the St Luke's thing was that green andy had put himself forward for the Kilamanjaro (sp) climb but obviously being the jolly hoaxer that he is had no intention of doing it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I also suspect that the suspected false bidder might well have been suspected to have links overseas but the cross-checking proved that not to be the case. And I refer to neither Tring nor Rickler.

Excuse me...

Can you clarify? Why is my name being mentioned at all?

Pete1886 wrote:

I thought the St Luke's thing was that green andy had put himself forward for the Kilamanjaro (sp) climb but obviously being the jolly hoaxer that he is had no intention of doing it.

He also bid in an auction and his bid was £1500, and a season ticket I think, which Nikkk matched, but GreenAndy never stumped up the cash. I believe it was going to be shared between St Lukes and PACSA

Penz wrote:

GOB wrote:

If you want to destroy trust then I can't think of a better way on a forum, esp. considering the antagonism between the two sites making the motive very strange, I could understand more if St Lukes were going to lose out but that was never the case and despite asking this question it's not been answered, which kinda highlights the question even more.

Yes, I don't understand the logic where the hugely appreciated St Lukes of this city has or would have lost out any money from this not very nice person.

I don't get it at all.... I've looked over there, but can see no logic behind statements of loss or logic of potential loss.
Tony, you're an avid contributor of Pasoti, can you point me in the right direction ?

Penz

My understanding was that the auction for the shirt was a 50/50, St Lukes and Cornish Supporters. Nikk said he would match the winning bid from the outset. GA was clearly looking to win and somewhere along the line offered a Green membership as well, which Nikkk said he would also match.

Hammer down, £3,000 winning bid, which Nikkk said he would match plus between them £680 for 2 Green Memberships.

So without GS money, St Lukes and Cornish Supporters got £1500 each rather than £3,000 and only one fan will get a Green membership, so another £340 lost, in total £3340.

Because of work comminitments I havent seen any change or if Nikkk has made up the shortfall, but I did see some individuals started donating money to do just that.

I hope that helps.

Greenjock wrote:

Pete1886 wrote:

I thought the St Luke's thing was that green andy had put himself forward for the Kilamanjaro (sp) climb but obviously being the jolly hoaxer that he is had no intention of doing it.

He also bid in an auction and his bid was £1500, and a season ticket I think, which Nikkk matched, but GreenAndy never stumped up the cash. I believe it was going to be shared between St Lukes and PACSA

I didn't realise the hoax bids were being split between St Luke's and PACSA

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

I'd imagine it was some kid with a bit too much time on his hands. Nothing particularly sinister, just a bored wind-up merchant who didnt think things through as well as perhaps they should.

I've got a question, why didn't the next highest bid then win?

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Until Charlie confirms what information he shared we are none the wiser. I would not trust Postey as far as I could throw him. If he is telling the truth then it seems that only IP addresses were shared - not the user name of the person we suspected.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I also suspect that the suspected false bidder might well have been suspected to have links overseas but the cross-checking proved that not to be the case. And I refer to neither Tring nor Rickler.

Excuse me...

Can you clarify? Why is my name being mentioned at all?

Because it is well known that you and Tring live abroad and neither of you is the person I suspect was suspected to be involved.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

I'd imagine it was some kid with a bit too much time on his hands. Nothing particularly sinister, just a bored wind-up merchant who didnt think things through as well as perhaps they should.

I've got a question, why didn't the next highest bid then win?

Good question, I cant remember off the top of my head what the second bid was as I cant find the thread, but lets say it was £200, Nikkk would have matched it and £400 was raised.

Because Nikkk had already agreed to £3000 + tthe £340 for a membership Im sure St Lukes and the Cornish fans were happy second wasnt declared winner:)

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

If there's a way I would happily contribute a small amount to St Lukes to play a small part in lowering that loss, Tony?

GOB, in the absence of any other evidence you choose to accept the word of a pasoti mod - the number of times their trustworthiness has been questioned on here!

The mistake of apparently sharing only the information that greenandy is not a poster on here has been acknowledged by two of us mods and a keyholder. In the absence of any other conflicting evidence - other than that provided by a pasoti mod - you choose to go with pasoti. Your ending of your post with a question does not remove the implication of what you have posted, in my opinion. Unless Charlie provides a different explanation, then all he has done is mistakenly state to pasoti that greenandy is not a poster on here.

(I may calm down and see this differently but until then - pissed off).

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

If there's a way I would happily contribute a small amount to St Lukes to play a small part in lowering that loss, Tony?

I see the donate button has gone, but that would have been one way to do our bit or direct contributions. A Hospice is for life not just a football forum dust up.

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

Forgive my ignorance but how have they lost £1,500?

Genuine question, not meant to be argumentative.

They never had the money in their bank in the first place did they? All that's happened is they've missed out on a £1,500 donation from some saddo on a wind up?

Or am I missing something?

Quote :

GOB, in the absence of any other evidence you choose to accept the word of a pasoti mod - the number of times their trustworthiness has been questioned on here!

The mistake of apparently sharing only the information that greenandy is not a poster on here has been acknowledged by two of us mods and a keyholder. In the absence of any other conflicting evidence - other than that provided by a pasoti mod - you choose to go with pasoti. Your ending of your post with a question does not remove the implication of what you have posted, in my opinion. Unless Charlie provides a different explanation, then all he has done is mistakenly state to pasoti that greenandy is not a poster on here.

(I may calm down and see this differently but until then - pissed off).

As I have said and as you have read in our pm's Knecht, it's a football forum not the United Nations, there's little for you to be pissed off about.........Your words Knecht, not mine.

Where did I say I prefer to take the word of a pasoti mod?

If you want my true feelings, as things stand then there isn't anyone I trust at the moment in this bizarre world of Internet politics and underhand dealings, who would.

You're implying that I am implying, so the world spins around.

Yea Man wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

Forgive my ignorance but how have they lost £1,500?

Genuine question, not meant to be argumentative.

They never had the money in their bank in the first place did they? All that's happened is they've missed out on a £1,500 donation from some saddo on a wind up?

Or am I missing something?

No Yea, you are perfectly correct, although most people would see it as a loss.

Yea Man wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

Forgive my ignorance but how have they lost £1,500?

Genuine question, not meant to be argumentative.

They never had the money in their bank in the first place did they? All that's happened is they've missed out on a £1,500 donation from some saddo on a wind up?

Or am I missing something?

Strictly speaking it is true Yea Man, but I'm sure someone from St Lukes would have been aware that they were in for a biggish donation, so to all intents and purposes they have lost out.