-Removed-So just to be clear, this is all because Ghost speculated that you might have been involved in FMF messing with his name on the radio? It's not like you're usually involved in the things FMF gets up to or anything. You're now going to post about it ad nauseum and moan that your posts attract red thumbs while you're doing it.
BTW wasn't it messing with the name in 'the real world' that took this into 'the real world' or am I missing something?
Cue the playground name calling.
@relentless-red saidGhost of a Duke didn't like a light-hearted pseudonym I used. He should have contacted me and asked me to use a different one. The idea that I was somehow using a radio programme in the UK to attack and humiliate him in public is ludicrous. The accusation that divegeester had any editing and production involvement in the making of the programme or that he was somehow involved in a conspiracy to ridicule Ghost of a Duke is industrial grade Suzianne-type self-obsessed paranoia and he still hasn't apologized to divegeester for it.
So just to be clear, this is all because Ghost speculated that you might have been involved in FMF messing with his name on the radio?
@relentless-red saidI disagree. The programme is teeming with pseudonyms and always has been, even now though we have more writers. I think contacting the radio station behind my back ~ with a complaint so hysterical that it got the plug pulled on a whole slate of radio programmes made by more than a dozen people ~ was an example of actual vindictiveness in the real world, whereas the pseudonym I used was nothing of the sort.
BTW wasn't it messing with the name in 'the real world' that took this into 'the real world' or am I missing something?
-Removed-There were accusations that I had ignored a request to stop using Ghost of a Duke's stories [not true]; that I was making money out of the programme [not true]; that I was asking people "to work for" me "for free" [it's an all-volunteer programme and station]; that perhaps I [or the radio station?] should be sued [and closed down?]; that divegeester was involved in the "attack"; that the radio station to stop the programme and sack me; that the radio station might be liable if they don't take action against me; that I should be confronted and beaten up; that I was trying to sabotage my own show; that the programme will not be able to succeed without Ghost of a Duke's stories because it makes "no sense from a business perspective"; etc. etc.
-Removed-Okay, so why are you dealing with it in an RHP handbags way e.g. the first line of this post and the post that I responded to if it is not like that?
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? 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.