Re: FAO: Mike Plowman of ITV Coronation Street Visual Updates (formerly CSVU net)

On 8 Jun, 21:33, middleli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Saviour Machine





<hauntedri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Jun, 19:51, Sofa - Spud <comfyso...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Saviour Machine wrote:
On 8 Jun, 13:46, Mike Plowman <mike.plow...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Whoa, I missed this:

"Does your wife know that you have contacted people's employers? Would
you mind if she was contacted to verify the answer?"

What on earth has my wife got to do with this, or indeed any other
member of my family? Good grief, you are a sad and nosy little man.

You twit barker - you want to contact MY WIFE about my getting a grip of
you.

Fucking hypocrite - and a creepy stalker too.

Yes, but in your case it's because you post racist and anti-disabled
comments directed at my family.

Which (whether true or not) doesn't alter the fact that it has nothing
to do with his wife, or indeed any other member of his family.  You'd
be doing it simply to try and stir up trouble for him.  Given that
fact, and the fact that you've tried to do the same via the employers
of two other newsgroup members, is it any wonder that people choose to
believe that you contacted someone's MP out of nothing but pure spite?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, you're speculating, and speculating wrongly. However, these are
all secondary issues. Jules and I emailed each other at the time: I
advised that I had an open mind but that if her claims were true I
would tell her MP what I thought of him, she was pissed off that I had
got involved at all. Bearing in mind that there had been no animosity
between us before my learning that her MP disagreed with her claims -
as Jules readily accepted at the time - I think it's pretty damned
obvious how things happened.

Besides, it's a pretty crappy and straw-clutching exercise to try and
turn the tables on the journalist stroke investigator, isn't it?
That's the sort of thing Blair or Bush does when they've been caught
out in a lie; Nixon made a fine art of it. Rather than hold their
hands up and admit they misled people (or lied), they go on the
offensive by attacking the person who caught them out. I had no motive
in outing Jules - indeed, I was hoping she was telling the truth so
that her MP would feel ashamed of his inaction - but even if I did,
the fact is immaterial and of minor relevance. The key issue is that
someone made a claim on a blog which turned out to be less than
truthful - a blog that was discussed in this forum.

Dirty pool, old chap, dirty pool.

PS. You sad wasters may be prepared to fritter away hundreds of hours
of your lives on arguing about this very simple issue for the rest of
your years, but I am not. This is now beyond a joke and is becoming an
unhealthy obsession. What's more, it can only be distressing to Jules
(who I have never condemned for saying what she did on her blog - I
understand that she was highly-strung at the time). I am therefore
REFUSING to discuss the specific issue of Jules and her blog claims
ever again. I shall leave it to her "friends" to keep raking the whole
sorry matter up.



.

Loading