@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo, it doesn't. It wasn't malicious and it wasn't petty. And it was not damaging. It was just something humorous that did not appeal to your sense of humour. You should have told me you wanted a different pseudonym rather than simply writing a preposterous letter and pretending it was coming from some sort of government official.
The lack of PM before changing my name demonstrates your petty intent.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou self-identify as a mental health practitioner. We have now progressed to the following day. Perhaps in the cold light of a new day, and given your profession, do you now have an answer to the question: Do you agree with Very Rusty's suggestion that I need "professional help"?
That question doesn't interest me.
@fmf saidWhy do you ignore answers you have been given?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Can the radio station expect a lawsuit from you regarding the GDPR?
No. I have zero interest in the radio show and am happy to push it to the far recesses of my memory. I didn't realise at the time you were an untrustworthy individual.
@fmf saidWhat did he mean by that exactly? Was it a throw away comment often made by people or was he specifically saying you were in genuine need of a psychiatrist?
You self-identify as a mental health practitioner. We have now progressed to the following day. Perhaps in the cold light of a new day, and given your profession, do you now have an answer to the question: Do you agree with Very Rusty's suggestion that I need "professional help"?
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@fmf saidIf you're at the point where Very Rusty is imploring you to seek professional help, maybe you should reconsider your position.
You self-identify as a mental health practitioner. We have now progressed to the following day. Perhaps in the cold light of a new day, and given your profession, do you now have an answer to the question: Do you agree with Very Rusty suggestion that I need "professional help"?
You know damned well what Ghost's vocation is, he's publicly mentioned it several times, so it's your credibility which suffers from your exaggerations.
The political mileage that you hoped would come from such embellishment has boomeranged to reveal your dishonest nature.
You really should work on that.
Signed,
A Medical Professional
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou mentioned "GDPR" and "ramifications" for the radio station.
Why do you ignore answers you have been given?
No. I have zero interest in the radio show and am happy to push it to the far recesses of my memory. I didn't realise at the time you were an untrustworthy individual.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDo you agree with Woofwoof's suggestion that I need "professional help"?
What did he mean by that exactly? Was it a throw away comment often made by people or was he specifically saying you were in genuine need of a psychiatrist?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo am I take it from your two evasive counter-questions that you endorse his suggestion?
What did he mean by that exactly? Was it a throw away comment often made by people or was he specifically saying you were in genuine need of a psychiatrist?
-Removed-In fairness, we are probably reaching the stage of a 'conditional half apology.'
At the time, bearing in mind your symbiotic relationship with FMF, I was 99% certain it was some little jape the two of you had cooked up together in the Dive Lounge. (That was after all how you operated and the most likely scenario).
The fact however, years on, you are still throwing a hissy fit about being wrongly accused, I am now 50/50 as to whether or not your finger prints were indeed 'all over it.'
But here are the conditions. Based on my 99% certainty at the time, I am at worst guilty of nothing more than a wrong assumption, not a lie. I did not give a false account but a totally realistic assumption of your involvement. 99 times out of a 100, when it comes to FMF's mischief or controversy, you are right there on his lap.
As I remain 50/50 as to your involvement, the best I can offer is a non committal half apology conditional on you removing the term 'lie' from the equation. How's that?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAs a mental health practitioner, do you endorse Very Rusty and Woofwoof's "banter"?
You can take from it whatever you like, although it was clear what I was asking.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am at worst guilty of nothing more than a wrong assumption, not a lie.
In fairness, we are probably reaching the stage of a 'conditional half apology.'
At the time, bearing in mind your symbiotic relationship with FMF, I was 99% certain it was some little jape the two of you had cooked up together in the Dive Lounge. (That was after all how you operated and the most likely scenario).
The fact however, years on, you are still throw ...[text shortened]... non committal half apology conditional on you removing the term 'lie' from the equation. How's that?
The same goes for your "hissy fit" about the pseudonym issue in which I exhibited no malice. You are also guilty of acting maliciously as a result of your wrong assumption.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Seeing as you had plans to sabotage the show by making hysterical accusations using a government email address, then the onus was on you to PM me and seek redress and correction before you went ahead.
However, I think the "no warning" and "behind the back" nature of the action you took [instead of the easy and obvious option] demonstrates that you were intentionally being as vindictive as possible... something that originated in a disagreement - in private - over another poster on a chess website.
No serious person can suggest that my use of a spoonerism for a pseudonym was me "intentionally being as vindictive as possible"