Sunday, August 8, 2010

Who are we?

A very interesting email arrived in the crosswhatfields email inbox this morning.  Paragraph by paragraph, this is what it said.

Who runs the crosswhatfields website and is it displayed anywhere on the website? I have a feeling I have totally overlooked it and it must be somewhere obvious.

Author's profiles are listed in the lefthand column at the foot of the page, and in some cases will lead to other blogs. As with most blogs, it is up to the individual author how much information about themselves they display in their profiles. For instance, does anyone know the real identity of local blog favourites Deptford Dame or the Greenwich Phantom? Not knowing the real people behind the pseudonyms does not make their blogs any the less interesting or relevant.   On the other hand, when blogs do give real identities, it is very often when they are ''celebrities''  or politicians or journalists - people who use blogs for professional reasons.  And we certainly aren't getting paid.

If not, don't you think it's a maverick operation with potential danger to individuals? I notice the 'wall of shame' for example which targets a particular individual. You can't undertake things like this if people cannot make you responsible for what you post.

The individual written about on the Wall of Shame has earned a public pillorying, and also represented by example of how demonstrably useless the work of the Antisocial Behaviour Team is (a service for which half the residents who are leaseholders have to pay). His immediate neighbours continue to suffer from his poor behaviour, although it has improved slightly over recent months. There are others on the estate indulging in antisocial behaviour adversely affecting their neighbours who have not been exposed.  In effect, these ''individuals''  actually represent more of a danger - and inconvenience - to the majority of residents, who by and large, manage to live sociably together in social housing.  Nor have we ever encouraged any form of behaviour that might have  put those who were  ''shamed'' in danger

However, I am not a lawyer - it's probably the last thing on earth I'd want to become - and I accept that the Wall of Shame could prove contentious.  For that reason, I've deleted it.  Wall of Shame?  What Wall of Shame?  (This, incidentally, is the blog's very first act of censorship....)

Why is there no endorsement from an official body on the website? Who is it that says it should be there? If the webmasters (this benevolent team of evanescent 'volunteers' we hear about) cannot be identified what do we do if we need to sue them?

We make it clear the opinions expressed are not those of any official body – as befits a free press, opinions are often not those of the editor or the producer/proprietor. See above. Also, anyone is welcome to comment, disagree and debate.  It may be that, having used's free service as a kind of forum for Crossfields life, the blog may have some slight influence on the tenants' and residents' association - if that's the case, it's the comments from the residents themselves that add weight.

I am not intending to sue you - indeed I think you do valuable things and it seems as if the influence of a residential committee is refocused and made dynamic through the website. But I should like to know who I am dealing with when I read it.

Thank you. The TRA do not contribute directly to the blog. Anyone is welcome to become an author on the blog – again, it is up to them whether they identify themselves clearly. The names and contact details of elected representatives, from MPs to block representatives for the TRA are given on the ''useful information'' page if you need to contact ''names.''  This is simply an additional place for contributing and that place is in the strange demi-monde of blogging where identities remain blurred.  Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse - it can encourage more honest expression (good) and it can result in people dismissing comments because they haven't put their name and address to it (bad).  In the end, you have to treat us a bit like the Deptford Dame, Brockley Central or the Greenwich Phantom - relevance and integrity is not assured by identity but by a demonstrable commitment to local issues.  Which is not to say you have to agree with every word or argument - there's a comments box for disagreeing and an off switch on your computer.

Please do give me a good answer - I'm sure it's organised through the residential committee or some such thing and they would answer the same? 

See above. Those on the TRA committee have been offered authorial rights but (with one exception) have not used them, nor have they ever commented in their official capacity. Hopefully, however, they welcome the blog as a useful communication tool, since it is difficult to attract people to monthly meetings.  But contact the TRA and ask them if you're in doubt  - personally I'd be surprised if they gave you the same answers.

By the way, I think it's a very good website. 

Thanks, a bit of positive feedback always helps. 

In response to a possible anticipated question: No, I don't feel I have to tell you who I am. Your website purports to represent the interests of individuals in a community and unless I am very much mistaken you don't feel like telling me who you are.

Bit of a Catch 22, that one. I'll show you mine if you'll me yours... It's not an official website, it's a blog, and it doesn't purport to represent anything other than the views of its authors who happen to be part of the community. If you look at the comments box you'll find we say that we prefer comments not to be made anonymously - because as soon as there are 2 anons commenting on a post, it gets hard to tell them apart.  We simply express a preference for a pseudonym if the poster doesn't want to give a name.  On the whole, we believe the views of blog contributors are benevolent to the community's interests. However, many of the resident's views are not represented since they choose not to use the blog to express them. It is possible to have up to 100 authors, but for various reasons (lack of web access, lack of confidence in their writing skills), people have chosen not to take up this offer.

Now, by now you will have realised that we're not going to ask you who you are but, instead, we're going to take it on trust that you're local and interested - why else would you take the time and trouble to write?  If you wish to publish a post on the blog, you're very very welcome.  Simply let us know and we'll send out an invitation to you to  author your own posts.  However, it won't make you an ''official representative'' of the TRA or anything like that.  I think someone has to vote you in for that.


  1. Ok, so who are you?

  2. I always use my real name because I feel that I should be able to stand behind what I say. I also note that I am the only contributer who provides an email on my profile to allow people to contact me directly.

    It's one of the eternal problems with this kind of blog. I can see how people might feel it is a little cowardly to name names so to speak without naming yourself.

    Of course others feel different and annonymity serves a good purpose sometimes. Allowing people their say without fear or prejudice.

    I'm very glad you have removed the wall of shame though. I think everyone I have pointed towards this blog has expressed their discomfort at it. It made Crosswhatfields look somewhat like self appointed vigilantes and so undermined any credibility it might claim. People outside your "sphere" were left wondering where it would end?

    These sorts of posts also put other contributers in a position where we may have felt threatened if people "exposed" thought that we were responsible for it in some way.

    Indeed other people who have been "named and shamed" in parts of the blog have also been asking round the estate to try and find out who the annonymous authors are. If I am asked what should my response be?

  3. Anon, who are you? And have you posted the same comment to all the other local bloggers? Let us know if you get an answer - we'd love to know who the Dame really is - although it would spoil the delicious mystery!

  4. To the person who wrote to Crosswhatfields:

    Some of this site's bloggers are community minded enough to attend the monthly TRA meetings, which means they are aware of any issues being brought to the TRA by residents attending.

    If you were really that interested in the life of this community you would have attended yourself and met them.

    You should also note that the TRA struggles by on voluntary effort, as does this blog. The main reason anything gets done, discussed or debated is because a small group of people sacrifice their own time. Most residents "don't have time to spare"...

    The blog was set up to offer another way to get involved that wasn't bound by time constraints. The Wall of Shame was put up by one contributor (me) in response to the total lack of appropriate action by our housing managers. It was intended to be controversial and provocative - with the proviso that it be removed if people complained. No one has until now, despite the various channels for complaint offered.

    John, who else has been named and shamed? The belligerent owner of a belligerent dog who has since been evicted through the courts after six months of terrorising neighbours (and the death of a cat) was not named...
    The other dog owner who was reported as threatening concerned neighbours was not named. If he has been "asking round to find out who the bloggers are" it is no wonder said blogger would want to remain anonymous.

  5. LOL err dont shoot the mesenger Sue. I'm just pointing out that the way things get "reported" on here may have repercussions for others who DO take the time to contribute...

  6. An interesting debate. Some bloggers like myself choose to remain anonymous because it makes it easier for us to review pubs and restaurants as a regular customer, without being given special treatment. In a small place like Deptford it's hard to do this otherwise. However I always try and make sure that my comments are fair, and that I would be happy to make them to the individual/business directly.

  7. What repercussions? You can explain you're a contributor, not an administrator. Since you happen to know who the administrators are, you can let the enquirer know at your discretion.

    What sort of style or tone do you suggest is adopted for the reporting of such matters? Should they not be reported at all? Some incidents remain unreported (such as a recent street phone mugging) to avoid spreading fear among residents, so there is already some censorship.

    Perhaps we should lose the Estate Matters page and allow such reporting to go on the main posts page (where they will also be able to be more easily commented on).

    It's easy to make changes and improve the experience of readers (and authors) upon suggestions and criticisms like these. Just that there haven't been any till now.

    We can also move the TRA page further along to avoid confusion about the TRA's involvement in the blog, as pointed out by our other critic.

  8. John, you have had ample opportunity to raise your concerns face to face with the administrators or by email (because you have our addresses) yet to my knowledge you have never done so. I simply do not understand why you should suddenly choose to raise these issues now instead of having actually done anything about them in the past.

  9. Aaaah I see -the 'administrators' do meet 'face to face' sometimes. Interesting. I expect you all have a nice pub corner somewhere or something.

    And MY goodness, I notice poor John is getting a good ticking off from the Powers that Be. There was even bold print.
    I wonder if the reply I wrote (I wrote the intiial letter) might go some way to explaining why John didn't 'raise his concernes face-to-face' - I wouldn't know, because I don't know him, but I have an inkling:

    Dear Crosswhatfields,
    I would say, with the presentation you use (notice the first column after 'Home' is TRA) that you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of honesty - I would imagine that a great many of your viewers consider that the website must, by the nature both of its content and presentation, be an organ of a residents committee which has given it a mandate. I had assumed so and I have a very good degree from a very good university, despite the caveat about it not representing the TRA - I had assumed it was provided by the council, or some other body. A fundamental quality of a free press is identification - an anonymously run or owned press can hardly be free, because how would we know who was influencing it?

    I wasn't happy with this bit:
    Nor have we ever encouraged any form of behaviour that might have put those who were ''shamed'' in danger - very magnanimous. Your response was again about this individual's behaviour, and the question I was asking was about yours. I hope you are all active at least in terms of residents committees etc?

    Yes I did think legally the wall of shame was a bit worrying. I wonder whether you'd have posted such a thing if the individual in question was as literate and litigious as you are capable of being.

    'It's not an official website, it's a blog, and it doesn't purport to represent anything other than the views of its authors who happen to part of the community' - how do I know? You could be living in Hampstead for all I know. Think of it from the reader/residents point of view - you come accross as secretive, furtive illuminati who meet in corners in person but keep your identities secret from the rest of the world. Do you know each other personally?

    'However, many of the resident's views are not represented since they choose not to use the blog to express them.' - you know why this is? It's because you are terrifying. We have and do see the consequences of incurring your ire.

    I think what you do in terms of Lewisham homes etc is excellent and DOES represent the interests of the community - but the point is, it's fortuitous that it does. It's also clear for instance that direct contact between you and Lewisham homes is not really a possibility due to your coyness about identifying yourselves. Furthermore, anything you tell us about your activities, however enlightened and benevolent, is unprovable and technically irrelevant as you could easily be making it up.

    I wasn't really suggesting you take down the wall of shame - I would however consider how you are presenting the blog as a whole because to me it looks 'official' when it is in fact, sorry, about this - useful, literate, interesting, informative, politically aware, responsible and - officious.

    The sound ticking off John just received for what I felt were downright courageous words is a case in point.

  10. Well the sound ticking off John has just received does rather prove the points I made in my reply to your email - I wrote the initial post to which you are writing in response in the article.

    Truly courageous words from John and a childish response from you - also if I may say vituperative and curmudgeounly.

    I take it when you say there haven't been any complaints 'till now' you're excluding the content of John's response?

    'However, many of the resident's views are not represented since they choose not to use the blog to express them.' - you know why this is? It's because you are terrifying. We have and do see the consequences of incurring your ire.

    I think what you do in terms of Lewisham homes etc is excellent and DOES represent the interests of the community - but the point is, it's fortuitous that it does. It's also clear for instance that direct contact between you and Lewisham homes is not really a possibility due to your coyness about identifying yourselves. Furthermore, anything you tell us about your activities, however enlightened and benevolent, is unprovable and technically irrelevant as you could easily be making it up.

  11. Anon, what you call a ''sound ticking off'' was actually me expressing incomprehension. And John is perfectly capable of giving his own opinion.

  12. Anonymous,
    Re: "I take it when you say there haven't been any complaints 'till now' you're excluding the content of John's response?"
    No, it's included. It's the first time John has brought up the subject of feeling uncomfortable with the content of the other pages (over which he has no control because he isn't an 'administrator'). He has, however, complained about other things!
    My God, Anon, you do have a bee in your bonnet!

    I repeat my previous comment: if you were attending TRA meetings you would know those involved. You are not, therefore you do not.

    FYI: the administrators have lived here over 30 years and therefore know each other reasonably well. They do not need a cosy pub corner to sit in and 'fabricate' stories as you suggest. And it is pretty obvious from the blog content that they know the estate well and probably live here and not in Hampstead. As for being terrifying, at least there are usually not too many long words like 'vituperative' being used, ha, ha.

    If you sense a censorious or officious tone anywhere, that is a shame, but it could only be hoped that as the authorial 'voices' increase with more contributors this would be less apparent.

    Meanwhile, if you had read any of the Lewisham Homes stuff (which you say is "excellent") or attended any TRA or Leaseholder meetings, it would be pretty obvious who the author of these posts is.

    Any other changes you would like to make whilst the blog administrator is at the 'dashboard'?

  13. Anon, again:
    Re: "It's also clear for instance that direct contact between you and Lewisham homes is not really a possibility due to your coyness about identifying yourselves."

    As I just said, if you actually read the Lewisham Homes stuff, you would have realised that Lewisham Homes knows exactly who is writing about their poor service and that the same comments have been levelled at them directly in writing and face-to-face.

    The blog was initiated partly because of their negligence in responding to queries and complaints – as well as an attempt to inform residents in the absence of any proper consultation.

    Hopefully you are now clearer and happier about all the matters that concern you, and feel able to take part. We look forward to reading your first post (send an email to crosswhatfields to request an invitation).

  14. Sue will tell you I have in fact raised concerns with her before about just such matters. I tend to do this in private however.

    Let's just remember that we are supposed to be working together for the good of the Estate

    I would however ask you not to dismiss all of anoymouses impressions out of hand. Sue, you are confusing his impression of an officious and censorious tone with the exercise of your editorial position. Lets not forget we are also in the business of managing peoples impressions here.

    And I'm not sure exactely what the bold face part in Marmosets comment means? I express my concerns because they are relevent to a post you made. Surely you can just dismiss any and all comments you receive on the grounds that they have not been made before? Bit weird but hey... It's a good job I'm a "big boy" if that is your response to my worrys.

    You have said it yourself: You seem to see this blog as being the modern equivalent of the Village stocks:

    "A criminal in the stocks would expect to be abused but his or her life was not targeted. A prisoner in the pillory was presumed to have committed a more serious crime and, accordingly, usually triggered a more aggressive reaction from the crowd."

    It is funny too that you have both mentioned the "c" word. The reality is that censorship occurs every time we decide whether to and what to post.

    Good suggestions though Sue. Then at least there would be an Author identified for any particular article. Removing any confusion.

    It was to avoid some of this kind of misunderstanding that I asked you to state clearly that this blog was not the Official voice of the TRA. Can you imagine what annonymous would be saying if you hadn't made that change?

    Anyhow I need to get on with useful work. I'd much rather give my time and efforts to something a little more positive and productive.

    Hope this all leads to a better blog eh! :O)

  15. John, how is it that you can interpret Anon's reference to officiousness as referring to the 'role' of the editors, rather than the tone of certain posts? Perhaps Anon can clarify.

    If your interpretation is correct, then the removal now of the pages that only administrators could access has satisfied one and all.

    You do not suggest what style one might adopt to inform others of the less savoury aspects of community life. The Estate Matters page was created to avoid having too much depressing news on the front page or ending up looking like the South London Press, but unfortunately due to the limitations of Google Blogspot all pages except the front page are static pages and cannot be posted to by other authors (although they could be commented upon). It was used to report stuff on behalf of residents who brought their concerns to TRA meetings and who wanted others to know...more than likely this sort of stuff will not be reported at all now...

    Meanwhile, thanks for pointing out the difference between stocks and pillories. I had thought them the same thing (please state your sources!).

    Mind you, I cannot promise not to post up again the video of the resident diving into the bins the next time he behaves abominably and gets away with it. Some people told me they very much enjoyed that video.

  16. Blimey, what a load of wooley liberal shit...
    Are you sure you don't know John, anonymous?
    Trouble with this blog is not enough people reading it, writing it or commenting, me included. Sorry, busy, busy. A thankless task, this community lark.

    Am missing the video already tho. It made me laugh out loud. Please reinstate it.

  17. ''A thankless task, this community lark.''

    Mmm, my thoughts exactly.

  18. LOL Why don't we just set up a real set of stocks eh? I'm sure it will be an essential part of the Big Society. I'll get my knitting out so I can watch "Crosswhatfields" justice delivered for real. I wonder how long I'll get for being Wooly and Liberal?

    At least Sue has take peoples views seriousley and do something about them .. And she'll tell you its not actually a thankless task. I have said well done to her for what she does on more than one occasion. Believe me I realise the importance of recognising peoples efforts :O)

    But as my Mum, who's been a community activist for many many years, always says "If you do it for praise or thanks then your on a hiding to nothing" lol

  19. Much confusion...

    I take people's views seriously, yes, indeed. But obviously too much for your tastes, John!

    Confused since I put up the posts that seem to incur Anon's wrath and ranting. I took people's views so seriously that I put up the Name & Shame page in protest on behalf of the neighbours of a certain abominable person, and voiced the concerns of those threatened by their irresponsible neighbours with dangerous dogs...

    Obviously it was all coming across as a bit too Daily Mail, so I was happy to take your views seriously too and remove these pages...though it appears it is OK with Anon to stick Lewisham Homes in the stocks!

    Cheers, Mushroom, Anon's aggressive comments make it all a thankless task, believe you me...

    We didn't have to publish his/her comments but we did - self-pilloried, if you like, ha, ha. Says Anon: "It's because you are terrifying. We have and do see the consequences of incurring your ire." But a public pillorying of an intolerable individual who keeps getting away with it is surely on a different level to an attack on those trying to report it. Indeed, Anon, you are terrifying...

    Apart from the pages mentioned above which have now been removed, it should be noted that no comments or authors on the main posting page have ever been censored by this site's administrators.

    Take a pat on the back, Anon & John, for attempting and succeeding to establish something akin to ethics and congratulations on changing the format to one that is more agreeable to you and more democratic. Hurrah!

  20. Anon, you're a bully and obviously don't live on Crossfields and have no idea how blogs work.

  21. Mulligatawny OwlMonday, August 09, 2010

    I wonder whether John and Anon had some kind of mutual vested interest in this. Has someone in the admin team somehow thwarted John so he's orchestrated a little snide campaign by enrolling the help of someone with much better English than him to undermine you?

  22. Gosh I wish I was that Machiavellian lol

  23. Mushroom, you can see the vid on YouTube...

  24. Mulligatawny OwlMonday, August 09, 2010

    Machiavellian? Would that mean doing something like grabbing a plot of unclaimed land for your own purposes and as soon as it comes under threat starting to call what is essentially a land grab a ''community garden?''

  25. Ouch Owl, that's probably a bit over the top...I may have annoyed him a little when I suggested he created a blog especially for the Allotments like I did for the Leaseholders because his posts were getting quite detailed, and we didn't want to increase the number of administrators that would have enabled him to have a page on Crosswhatfields blog (which isn't a very good way of displaying a lot of info anyway)...

    In fact, he's just emailed to say he's setting up a special site for Crossfields Green Spaces which we can link to as soon as it's up and running which he says will be very soon. He'll probably do a post to announce it...

  26. Mulligatawny OwlMonday, August 09, 2010

    Yes, it's probably over the top but not necessarily untrue. I've no idea what's going on but I asked earlier whether it was something that happened because John Rodent had been thwarted...and, lo and behold, it appears that he just hasn't got his own status as administrator. Odd, very odd.

  27. Of course I will continue to post on here. You dont get rid of me that easily and Im sure you wouldnt want to. ;O) I will provide summaries of whats going on with the garden as well as links to Green spaces stuff as and when. And anything else that catches my eye or I think you'll be interested in...

  28. Sherlock (your mum)Tuesday, August 10, 2010

    Mulligatawny, now you mention it, there does seem to be a weird telepathy going on...certainly calling John 'courageous' for just speaking his mind, whilst castigating Sue or Marmoset (and who else?) for doing the same. Anon could easily be his rather more eloquent Mum.

    Presumably the moderators have saved the information on the deleted pages in case it is required in the future, though some of it had cobwebs on it already...Looks like the site has now had a good dusting, although it could have all been done a bit more quietly if it's administrators were less transparent, methinks...

    So much for quiet, you can no longer hide the bad news on an inside page. You must publish warts n' all. Good luck with that.

    I see neither Anonymous nor JR are able to offer advice on delivering bad news, although Anon appears to be good at hanging good folk out to dry and JR quick to follow.

    Anon's contribution dried up after Marmoset's & Sue's responses and the somewhat static 'stocks' pages were deleted, and that leads me to believe your trust, Marmoset, in their being local and community orientated, was ill-founded and perhaps Mulligatawny's guess seems nearer the mark.

    Nevertheless, you've got a new look blog as a result, unsullied by old un-updated pages containing what appears to be Sue's valiant attempt at redressing wrongs. These pages, by not being updated, were stultifying. Perhaps Sue intended this, the same guys lying in the stocks for years as punishment for all the discomfort and in one case, death, they'd caused. But this doesn't make for a good blog.

    If horrible problems find their way to the front page so much the better for transparency – though not necessarily good for any leaseholder trying to sell or let. Still, if it's up front at least people know what they're dealing with. The blog still has the problem of how to report delicate and perhaps abhorant matters sensitively, but from what I've read, I think the present authors are able to do this (if they're courageous enough, to quote JR's admirer/mother Anon).

    That's if you 'have the time to spare' of course, which most of us don't.

  29. I wouldn't want to advise on how to deliver news - not my job. However I would say that as a general rule it would be a good idea not to try to revile or judge people for their levels of commitment or involvement - The tendency has been to tell people off who offer advice or points of view you don't like on the grounds that they aren't 1-contributing enough to the blog 2-involved enough with local activities, or the TRA etc etc

    Better really to accept people without attacking THEM DIRECTLY - this is likely to foster a more inclusive atmosphere and possibly increase contributions. Being accepting of their levels of involvement rather than judgemental.

    By the way there is a very easily noticed large rare bird living in the creek, visible from the Ha'penny Hatch. Forgotten what you call one of them.

  30. Heron! Heron! That's it

  31. What ARE you on about Anonymous?
    Who is reviling, who is telling off?

  32. Anon, herons are neither rare in London nor do they live in the creek. There's been a heronry in Brookmill Park for as long as I can remember, back in the dirty Thames days. They're a common sight fishing at low tide. I think that takes care of the important stuff.

  33. Well at least I was contributing.

    Sue I was referring to posts such as

    "If you were really that interested in the life of this community you would have attended yourself and met them."


    "I simply do not understand why you should suddenly choose to raise these issues now instead of having actually done anything about them in the past."

    The second one is from Marmoset, the first one is from, er, ah, well, you, Sue.

    Mulig: btw, I don't know any of you, at all.

  34. And I think you're getting the Anons mixed up.

    I wrote the majority of posts that are Anonymous but not this:

    'Anon, you're a bully and obviously don't live on Crossfields and have no idea how blogs work.'

    I anticipated an irritable comment suggesting I stop being anonymous - but that's the whole point, you castigate people for not contributing then you castigate them for how they contribute. Sometimes you even castigate them when they contribute for not contributing, which is in fact quite a feat.

  35. Anon, you couldn't know this but we are waiting for the person to whom the ''I simply do not understand'' bit was addressed to contact us so that we can sort out

  36. Anonymous:

    The first comment you refer to ("If you were really interested..." - from me), is simply saying that our anonymity is not that well protected in that those attending TRA meetings get to put names to might be one way to find out instead of attacking people on the blog. The comment was also made in the context of the pages you deemed contentious which were very much the subject of TRA meetings.

    The second "I simply do not understand..." from Marmoset, was directed at John, not yourself, since John was joining in the slagging off from you.

    And where do you get this "castigating people for not contributing" and "castigating them for how they contribute"...? What on earth are you on about?

    The only explanation I can think of is that you are a friend of John's (or more than likely, you ARE John) and he has been moaning to you about the fact that I asked him to make his posts a bit shorter and that he might want to set up a blog for the Allotment stuff he is dealing with because there is so much information to pass on - as had to be done with the Leaseholder's Campaign. We would then link to it and he could make occasional posts directing people to it. These suggestions were made by me in my capacity as moderator/administrator, privately, with no public embarrassment to John.

    He has since set up what looks to be a very promising blog and we are waiting for him to announce it to the world.

    Now. Go. Away.

  37. No, I honestly don't know any of you and reading his rather well-worded posts I cannot believe you'd think that someone who is obviously sensible and so on would impersonate someone else - just get that right out of your head.

    Lastly, regarding castigating people, you understand PERFECTLY because 'what I am on about' is exactly what you were doing to John and others who contributed, which was telling them off for their lack of involvement etc

    You do NOT know me, I do not know ANY of you. What interests me is whether you decide that this makes my posts less relevant, because the WHOLE POINT of the WHOLE THING was MY problem with YOUR anonymity. And yet the rather increasingly wonderful irony is that you seem to have such a problem with mine!

  38. What others! I don't see Stickman, Mushroom, Thought of Stuff or Bikepest complaining, publicly or privately. Just John, John, and John.

    What a menace you are. The marvellous thing is we CAN just delete you!

  39. Mulligatawny OwlFriday, August 13, 2010

    Owls, on the other hand, are rarely seen around the Creek. But, go on, admit it, it's nice knowing I'm around, isn't it?

  40. What difference does it make if you abuse John, whomever he is, or me? Sue can you do ANYTHING other than tell people off? Tell them off for posting, for not posting, for being anonymous, for not, for responding to you, for not...

    I'm actually really disgusted that you turned on one of your friends because someone responded to your blog. I imagine he is too. And for the very last time, no I am not him.

    I think the thing that's annoying you is that there is now a possibility that someone other than one of the moderators reads your blog. You don't seem to like it much - your response is to threaten to delete to return the blog to the silent ocean it was before. More peaceful.

    And do I even need to bother crowing with delight at your appalling little threat to delete me?

    Bit of an Obi-Wan situation if ever there was one. Particularly considering that as far as you'll ever be concerned, I don't exist.

  41. Sorry, another thing. Sue said "our anonymity is not that well protected in that those attending TRA meetings get to put names to faces"
    - I thought you people said this wasn't the mouthpiece of the TRA???

    Don't be 'negligent in response to complaints' now, to quote Sue.

  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  45. Sue I apologize for annoying you. But it's occurred to me that you really haven't seriously considered the possibility that I'm not John, and you've also not considered the possibility that I might be a normal resident who has googled the blog and am unknown to you. I assure you both of these circumstances are true, betide, pertain and persist so please find a way to mend your friendship with John, who must by now be pretty upset with you. With good reason as you are not very nice. And another fact that matters is that he is as unknown to me as you are - you really do need to figure this out.

    As to John's aims, Sue, I haven't really any idea what they are (expect you mentioned he was making a website or something) because all I really noticed was the dressing down you gave him. That did make me capricious I admit, so I'll but out now, lest I irritate you so much your imagination runs even wilder.

    You seemed confused by some of the things I put eariler; I am not going to explain them to you, get your friends to do that. You've got one in Pedant there who clearly has diplomatic skills.

    I'm sorry to hear about the disappointment the newsletter caused you last year. I really wouldn't like to be that person either - (and no, good Lord, this is really grinding... whomever they are, I am not them) but it does worry me that unless you do the job yourself, you feel obliged to lambast people. Case in point: you create a blog, someone reads it, someone posts on it. You get very cross and start questioning the freedom of the blog.

    Right here with the last posts, we've got yet more aggression... it is a concern and I am raising it. And yes, I expect to be allowed to do that without your criticism for being anonymous, or in fact anything else. Treat people respectfully Sue, please, whoever they are.

  46. Wow, 50 comments! Should we leave this thread open to see whether we can get to 100? Not that we're going to learn anything more by leaving it open.

    Meanwhile I do hope John is ok - I wrote to him a couple of days ago asking him to explain a couple of things to us but he hasn't replied yet. I don't see how this thread can advance until he does so. Organ grinders and monkeys, and all that....

  47. Sincere apologies if I have caused any kind of problem for 'John' - however if people have accused him of saying things I've said, I rather think it's not me who has caused a problem.

  48. Anon, all posts that appear on here as ''anonymous'' are unattributable. Unless I have missed something, I don't think anything any anonymous poster has said has been attributed to John. Please correct me if I have missed something.

  49. That was the point I was trying to make Marmoset: It was Sue who repeatedly tried to make out an anonymous (ie possibly myself) poster was John, something I very much doubt despite not knowing him.