16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDid you not contact me so that you could then do the most vindictive thing you could think of?
Your action should have been to ask for consent, surely?
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are lying.
Yes you did. 2 of them. The second contained a question.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhen the station realized that you were just a backstabbing nobody from the internet, the fact you'd used an official government email address was part of what made you look like a creep. And so the radio shows were restored.
It was an email relating to stories submitted by a writer to a show. Why on Earth would my job provide any gravitas. It was clearly a personal matter. I wasn't writing on behalf of the Prime Minister.
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWell you needn’t worry, FMF and I would never stitch you up with your bosses. Nor would either of us reveal your identity.
I used my work email because that is how the two of us communicated. (When there was trust. - As I wrote the stories on my work laptop during lockdown, so were easier to send from there). It had no relevance to the email I sent. But yes you're right, in retrospect I should have forwarded details to a private email and sent it from there.
We are both just hugely disappointed in you.
And quite pissed off with you to be fair.
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidGary Barlow > Barry Garlow on two of your onions. That’s it.
Why do you gloss over the fact that you acted without my consent or letting me know what you were going to do?
Grow up!
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI'm not. There was nothing vindictive about it. And yet not raising it with me and instead contacting the station behind my back was sheer vindictiveness.
Why do you gloss over the fact that you acted without my consent or letting me know what you were going to do?
16 Dec 23
@divegeester saidI never thought you would. I wouldn't do likewise.
Well you needn’t worry, FMF and I would never stitch you up with your bosses. Nor would either of us reveal your identity.
We are both just hugely disappointed in you.
And quite pissed off with you to be fair.
Ditto on the latter.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI read them last week when I dug out the letter to the radio station. No messages that required action and nothing that required a reply.
Why do you always resort to that? Do you even remember the two messages?
Why didn't you warn me that you were going to write directly to the radio station? Why did you keep that secret?
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAgain… because I’m saying them to your face. “Sir”
See there you go again with the false assumptions. Please explain why they are any different from the assumption I made about you?
Edit: Good luck with that.
You said yours about me, behind my back.
Coward!
16 Dec 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBecause of Gary Barlow > Barry Garlow on just two of your several broadcast onions?
I never thought you would. I wouldn't do likewise.
Ditto on the latter.
Grow up.
16 Dec 23
@divegeester saidPart of the trust I put in FMF was in giving him access to my family, via the broadcasts they listened to. This is why he should have asked for my consent before spoonerizing my name on live radio. You may think it silly, but it did cause confusion and embarrassment. It appeared I was on a show that couldn't even get my name right. - Why was it ok for FMF to do that? He says he found it funny. Does that make it ok then?
Gary Barlow > Barry Garlow on two of your onions. That’s it.
Grow up!
16 Dec 23
@fmf saidYikes, caught in a lie. The second message was via RHP which you deleted without replying to. How did you read that last week?
I read them last week when I dug out the letter to the radio station. No messages that required action and nothing that required a reply.
Why didn't you warn me that you were going to write directly to the radio station? Why did you keep that secret?