@ghost-of-a-duke saidHave you ever pulled a stunt like the one you are currently attempting with Executioner Brand and me in order to land any blows in office politics going on in your workplace?
Never mind the explained reason I gave for not liking such meetings, you have created a whole false narrative of being hated by colleagues and the like.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYour reticence is understandable. There could certainly be some uncomfortable staff meetings if you are the kind of colleague who engages in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand.
You are not somebody I would trust to discuss anything work related with.
It was interesting a few months back that you were inclined to voice support for Phillip Scofield even though he presided over an utterly toxic workplace that he was the cause of ~ and you made excuses for his behaviour too. You seemed to have trouble accepting that certain power moves in a workplace are simply unacceptable.
It was an eyebrow-raising inclination on your part, at least to me, and you did unravel somewhat on that thread.
Was Scofield a kindred spirit in terms of being a catty workplace warrior willing to propagate any kind of gossip or smear if the feeling of resentment was at a sufficient level? Rather like you have been doing these last few days.
@fmf saidThe Scofield thing is a bit weird. I withheld judgement until there was further information. Again, good to see your embellishment at work.
Your reticence is understandable. There could certainly be some uncomfortable staff meetings if you are the kind of colleague who engages in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand.
It was interesting a few months back that you were inclined to voice support for Phillip Scofield ev ...[text shortened]... eeling of resentment was at a sufficient level? Rather like you have been doing these last few days.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat "embellishment"?
The Scofield thing is a bit weird. I withheld judgement until there was further information. Again, good to see your embellishment at work.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
There could certainly be some uncomfortable staff meetings for you if you are the kind of colleague who engages in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand.
@fmf saidYou are not somebody I would trust to discuss anything work related with.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
There could certainly be some uncomfortable staff meetings for you if you are the kind of colleague who engages in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAs I observe, and blank it out if you choose, if you are the kind of colleague who engages - in your workplace - in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand, then I wonder if you ever have cause to say to people ~ who are affected by your poisoning of the well ~ the equivalent of "Don't mess with the Ghost".
You are not somebody I would trust to discuss anything work related with.
@fmf saidIf you were somebody I trusted, I would happily respond.
As I observe, and blank it out if you choose, if you are the kind of colleague who engages - in your workplace - in stuff akin to your backstabbing letter to my radio station and your current ultra-vindictive banter-gimmick regarding Executioner Brand, then I wonder if you ever have cause to say to people ~ who are affected by your poisoning of the well ~ the equivalent of "Don't mess with the Ghost".
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI never used the word schizophrenia when I was in exchanges with him. You obviously didn't read any of those exchanges.
As you've referenced Executioner Brand, let's go with him, a chap who has been open about his mental health issues.And it's mental health terms that you weaponize.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, this.
That 'little reveal' was something I said in conversation to another poster. True to form you pounced on it and have mentioned it at least 50 times since then. An innocuous mention of a dreaded team meeting has taken on a whole new life in your hands and is a perfect example of how you take a snippet of personal information and embellish to your hearts content. Never ...[text shortened]... narrative of being hated by colleagues and the like.
You don't see me. You barely see yourself.
So. Much. This.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBut is it a "false narrative"?
Never mind the explained reason I gave for not liking such meetings, you have created a whole false narrative of being hated by colleagues and the like.
You exhibit anger and a self-debilitating desire for revenge on regular occasions.
You have demonstrated yourself to be a backstabber, plain and simple.
You appear perfectly at ease poisoning the well and smearing someone you feel slighted by ~ the most recent example, rather like Romans1009 and Kevin Eleven, having no compunction about weaponizing mental health issues.
You supported Phillip Scofield over the accusations that he presided over a toxic workplace and you described respect for common sensical, decent norms and protocols in a workplace as "wishy-washy".
Do you not think you have revealed rather a lot about what you are perhaps like in real life?
I mean, your letter to the radio station used your official local government email address and was given a subject that made it seem like official business: perhaps you do stoop to whatever Machiavellian tactic that suits your purpose at work.
You have given plenty of clues.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere is no embellishment. The thread is still there. People can take a look for themselves.
The Scofield thing is a bit weird. I withheld judgement until there was further information. Again, good to see your embellishment at work.
@fmf saidYes, please do. It's on page 7. Dive had created the thread to draw a strange link between Schofield and the crimes of his brother. (As though such things run in our genetics).
There is no embellishment. The thread is still there. People can take a look for themselves.
I made clear that I hadn't really been following the story, but that I saw 'a sad celebrity who lied about a gay affair, presumably to keep it from his family and hide his sexuality/protect his career. And to try and link this to the criminal acts of his brother was also pretty sad.'
More details came out later of course, but unlike some I don't rush to judge.