The Popular Group

@relentless-red said
If you don't want to do it in an RHP handbags style

Oh but I DO, I really really DO.

@divegeester said
I think my clearly laid out bulleted post is a correct précis of the situation. People can and eventually will make their own minds up.

Sharing a genuine belief about you in a private club is neither lying or unreasonable. I saw you do that on a daily basis in your own club and at no stage did it occur to me to cut and paste the dialogue to the persons concerned.

@divegeester said
Oh but I DO, I really really DO.

I know sir, I know.

@relentless-red said

then why were programmes suspended if the complaint was as trivial as depicted here? That kind of drastic action didn't used to happen in my bit of the real world unless the Management thought things were very wrong.

Please don’t be so naive, honestly are you really this dim? Do you really need me to explain how corporate entities react to accusatory content of the type raise by the protagonist?

Jeez me squeeze me!!

@relentless-red said
If you don't want to do it in an RHP handbags style, then why were programmes suspended if the complaint was as trivial as depicted here?

Because the complaint was framed in a way that made it sound like an existential threat to the radio station, nevermind just the radio programme: it was supposedly an "attack" being made in public, that someone at their radio station was trying ridicule and humiliate one of the contributors to the show, that it was affecting someone's health, it was causing insomnia, it was causing difficulties in his workplace, that it was causing family and friends to be upset. There were spurious and paranoid accusations about there being spiteful or vengeful motivations for using pseudonyms etc.

When the board of directors heard that the take-down request was the result of Ghost of a Duke being in a huff about something that happened on a message board and that he hadn't even contacted me to query the use of the pseudonym or give me a different one ~ when they realized that he had not even contacted me directly first before going to them ~ all four shows were reinstated immediately.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I know sir, I know.

Don’t mess with the Geester.

[SIC]

@divegeester said
You say “OK” as though you are accepting my explanation to you, so why not address the content instead of deflecting about style?

I think you are deflecting from the question in the second paragraph which is asked in the spirit of genuine curiosity and does address the content. Why does the radio station's reaction seem disproportionate to the content as laid out by you?

@fmf said
Because the complaint was framed in a way that made it sound like an existential threat to the radio station, nevermind just the radio programme: it was supposedly an "attack" being made in public, it was affecting someone's health, it was causing insomnia, it was causing difficulties in his workplace, that it was causing family and friends to be upset. There were spurious and pa ...[text shortened]... even contacted me directly first before going to them ~ all four shows were reinstated immediately.

That's quite a story. Perhaps enter the prose contest next year.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Sharing a genuine belief about you in a private club is neither lying or unreasonable. I saw you do that on a daily basis in your own club and at no stage did it occur to me to cut and paste the dialogue to the persons concerned.

It was related to real life, it was completely untrue, it was completely unfounded, it was without evidence, it was unreasonable and you did it for nefarious motives to drive division in these forums between forum members who have known each other for years ... and you were successful.

I’m not going to let you forget it nor get away with it.

@relentless-red said
I think you are deflecting from the question in the second paragraph which is asked in the spirit of genuine curiosity and does address the content. Why does the radio station's reaction seem disproportionate to the content as laid out by you?

It doesn’t, and I have responded in a separate reply.

I think you are clutching at a tenuous straw with this ~ why did the radio station react this way to a histrionic complaint ~ tact and you would do well to rethink it.

But it’s your call of course

@relentless-red said
I think you are deflecting from the question in the second paragraph which is asked in the spirit of genuine curiosity and does address the content. Why does the radio station's reaction seem disproportionate to the content as laid out by you?

I was able to send audios showing the original recording where my name was used correctly and the one where it had been retrospectively altered.

@relentless-red said
Why does the radio station's reaction seem disproportionate to the content as laid out by you?

How many times do you need this to be answered?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I was able to send audios showing the original recording where my name was used correctly and the one where it had been retrospectively altered.

Yes, as are many others changed from the original reading and for exactly the same reason.

🙄

@divegeester said
It was related to real life, it was completely untrue, it was completely unfounded, it was without evidence, it was unreasonable and you did it for nefarious motives to drive division in these forums between forum members who have known each other for years ... and you were successful.

I’m not going to let you forget it nor get away with it.

I appreciate you calling me successful. That warms the cockles of my heart.

It doesn't alter the fact that I was sharing a genuine belief based on your weird symbiotic relationship with FMF.

Now, I'm off to eat hot cross buns.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I appreciate you calling me successful. That warms the cockles of my heart.

And there it is folks.

Please read that reply to me over and over until you see and understand the motivations of this person.