c4countdown

I've just had it brought to my attention by Kirk that there were Internet forum threads dedicated to my hatred which had been reposted on gandiseeg.com. I can't believe this has been going on for so long and I didn't know. I also can't believe how many misconceptions about me have been expressed. The idea that I think I'm an 'anagram superhero', loved by everyone? Laughable. A prick? My family, friends and colleagues will tell you that I'm a nice, generous person who will put himself out for others.

It seems to have all started because Jon Corby hated my cheating in my earliest days on apterous. Yes, I did, and I denied it, and I'm very sorry to everyone for that. Cheating is for bastards, and I was a bastard. Lots of the comments I have read, pre 2010, were in relation to my cheating, and are fair enough.

But that's not the only reason I've attracted vitriolic comments - apparently people thought it was okay to make fun of my appearance and my facial tics when I was on Countdown (as least during my first 8 games) as well. People who I regularly play on apterous, and I've never had a bad word to say against, have joined in with the insults and malice. I always suspected certain people of hating or disliking me, but others (Kirk, Ryan, Dinos) have really surprised me. I liked all of you, and am genuinely disappointed.

Some people don't like some people.

I wouldn't worry about it that much TBH, people vent about all kinds of things and personally I'd rather they did it privately than publicly. I'm sure almost everyone on here has had at least some mean things to say about me at some point and luckily no one was cruel enough to relay them to me, but it's just the nature of the beast with social interaction. I'm genuinely impressed that you owned up to a bit of cheating a few years ago. For the record I think you'd find some of the stuff said about you quite amusing and even complimentary if you look back on it.

Chris Davies wrote:It seems to have all started because Jon Corby hated my cheating in my earliest days on apterous. Yes, I did, and I denied it, and I'm very sorry to everyone for that. Cheating is for bastards, and I was a bastard. Lots of the comments I have read, pre 2010, were in relation to my cheating, and are fair enough.

At last!

Yes, I agree that cheating is for bastards. Whether one ceases to be a bastard the instant one finally admits to it, despite vehemently denying it for years, is another matter.

BTW, I don't think it was actually Kirk who notified you. His account on here (I assume this notification was via PM on this forum? otherwise Kirk has some serious security issues) appears to have been breached by Richard Brittain.

Jon Corby wrote:

Chris Davies wrote:It seems to have all started because Jon Corby hated my cheating in my earliest days on apterous. Yes, I did, and I denied it, and I'm very sorry to everyone for that. Cheating is for bastards, and I was a bastard. Lots of the comments I have read, pre 2010, were in relation to my cheating, and are fair enough.

At last!

Yes, I agree that cheating is for bastards. Whether one ceases to be a bastard the instant one finally admits to it, despite vehemently denying it for years, is another matter.

BTW, I don't think it was actually Kirk who notified you. His account on here (I assume this notification was via PM on this forum? otherwise Kirk has some serious security issues) appears to have been breached by Richard Brittain.

His apterous account may have been breached as well. I was told by 'Kirk' on apterous, and recently he has played some, erm, out-of-character games.
I haven't denied cheating on apterous once since I denied it in January 2009. I was never asked, and had I been asked, I would have owned up, and publicly so. I promised that to myself long ago. I just hoped it wouldn't come up and would be forgoten about, and pretty much forgot about it myself. But here we are. My sincerest apologies again to everyone concerned, especially to Charlie.

Jon Corby wrote: BTW, I don't think it was actually Kirk who notified you. His account on here (I assume this notification was via PM on this forum? otherwise Kirk has some serious security issues) appears to have been breached by Richard Brittain.

Ah, that explains last night's debacles. I did smell a rat there. So what's happened, has he brute-forced the passwords or something?

As for past cheating - meh, ancient history. If you've fixed your ways, then that's all good.

Some idiocy and ignorant comments are sadly to be expected from people who try to judge you entirely based on what little they saw of you on TV, like those on Digital Spy and other sites like that, but I'd be very surprised if there is any genuine spite towards you among people who've actually met you. In all times I've spoken with you you've been thoroughly pleasant and modest, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. Don't let this get to you, by the looks of it it was just somebody trying to stir up trouble anyway.

I am starting to understand the PM I got from Richard Priest now.

Have to say I am loving Richard Brittain's work: I might have to friend him on facebook after all.

Chris Davies wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Chris Davies wrote:It seems to have all started because Jon Corby hated my cheating in my earliest days on apterous. Yes, I did, and I denied it, and I'm very sorry to everyone for that. Cheating is for bastards, and I was a bastard. Lots of the comments I have read, pre 2010, were in relation to my cheating, and are fair enough.

At last!

Yes, I agree that cheating is for bastards. Whether one ceases to be a bastard the instant one finally admits to it, despite vehemently denying it for years, is another matter.

BTW, I don't think it was actually Kirk who notified you. His account on here (I assume this notification was via PM on this forum? otherwise Kirk has some serious security issues) appears to have been breached by Richard Brittain.

His apterous account may have been breached as well. I was told by 'Kirk' on apterous, and recently he has played some, erm, out-of-character games.
I haven't denied cheating on apterous once since I denied it in January 2009. I was never asked, and had I been asked, I would have owned up, and publicly so. I promised that to myself long ago. I just hoped it wouldn't come up and would be forgoten about, and pretty much forgot about it myself. But here we are. My sincerest apologies again to everyone concerned, especially to Charlie.

Dude, this is a bullshit politician type answer.

"I haven't denied it since people stopped asking me"! o rly?

Don't believe what you read in the papers, this is all a cover up. Kirk lost to Jason Larsen last night and is now masquerading as Richard Brittain to try and pass the buck. I think he's gone a bit too far but you've got to admire the amount of effort he's invested in it all.

Innis Carson wrote:Some idiocy and ignorant comments are sadly to be expected from people who try to judge you entirely based on what little they saw of you on TV, like those on Digital Spy and other sites like that, but I'd be very surprised if there is any genuine spite towards you among people who've actually met you. In all times I've spoken with you you've been thoroughly pleasant and modest, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. Don't let this get to you, by the looks of it it was just somebody trying to stir up trouble anyway.

Top post

Chris, you are a top bloke.
If anyone, including you Mr. Corby, can honestly say they have never cheated at ANYTHING in their life they are either Jeffrey Archer or are lying (to either us or themselves).
Although I am not referring to Apterous play.

Marc Meakin wrote:Chris, you are a top bloke.
If anyone, including you Mr. Corby, can honestly say they have never cheated at ANYTHING in their life they are either Jeffrey Archer or are lying (to either us or themselves).
Although I am not referring to Apterous play.

Depends what you mean. I can't think of anything I've 'cheated' at in that sense, no, where it's a game between two people. Everybody else does it occasionally though? Really? Wow. I'm not sure I'll ever bother playing a game of anything ever again.

As for the whole 'Chris is a top bloke' thing, I do have to cede the point that everybody who has met him does seem to say he's a nice guy. I can't help my impressions based on what was available to me, I had my reasons (some of which were laid out pretty clearly) but this was a private conversation between friends that was intercepted. If you really want to discuss it in public then we can, but it's probably best not to, eh?

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Chris, you are a top bloke.
If anyone, including you Mr. Corby, can honestly say they have never cheated at ANYTHING in their life they are either Jeffrey Archer or are lying (to either us or themselves).
Although I am not referring to Apterous play.

Depends what you mean. I can't think of anything I've 'cheated' at in that sense, no, where it's a game between two people. Everybody else does it occasionally though? Really? Wow. I'm not sure I'll ever bother playing a game of anything ever again.

As for the whole 'Chris is a top bloke' thing, I do have to cede the point that everybody who has met him does seem to say he's a nice guy. I can't help my impressions based on what was available to me, I had my reasons (some of which were laid out pretty clearly) but this was a private conversation between friends that was intercepted. If you really want to discuss it in public then we can, but it's probably best not to, eh?

I do mean cheating in its broadest sense like fiddling parking fines avoiding paying tv licence and downloading mp3's
I'm just playing devils avacado really and (as usual) not read all the facts can't be arsed just wanted to defend a decent chap.
But if you are ever in Milton Keynes (my new home) and fancy a pint yer on.

I can see how one post by me in that thread surprised you (my view about conquering the world by winning Countdown etc.) which I did think at the time after reading your Facebook post and since I'd only met you once before I didn't have much to go on. Obviously I saw you just 2 weeks ago today and do you think I would have stood waiting half an hour in the rain for someone I didn't like?

This isn't an apology however, as I don't expect you to forgive me, it's just a regret that you read a private post that needed some context.

Ryan Taylor wrote:I can see how one post by me in that thread surprised you (my view about conquering the world by winning Countdown etc.) which I did think at the time after reading your Facebook post and since I'd only met you once before I didn't have much to go on. Obviously I saw you just 2 weeks ago today and do you think I would have stood waiting half an hour in the rain for someone I didn't like?

This isn't an apology however, as I don't expect you to forgive me, it's just a regret that you read a private post that needed some context.

Well I have to say I was surprised by that view. When I pointed out that guy's abusive Facebook post about Jack Hurst and said that he had probably achieved nothing, I was merely implying that this guy was jealous of Jack's achievement. It had nothing whatsoever to do with my Countdown win.

I made that Facebook Q & A because I really do still get asked the same questions all the time. Even a year after the finals, I still get recognised (especially in or around my hometown) once or twice a week or so - only because I'm readily recognisable and have had a lot of airtime, as contestants go. It was also meant to be fairly humorous, and if it was somehow construed as egotistical, I don't think that's my problem. Plenty of people liked it.

There is stuff posted about lots of forumites including myself, by RB, in an attempt to

1) Slander us about things which we may have done which may not have been approved of by all, through a mock up of C4C called the sancty. In my case it was the Facebook group I made taking the piss out of Kirk making excuses for not winning the duel everyday. Looking back on it, the group does seem a bit silly to me, but still he's going OTT.
2) Making it seem as though people from C4C hate others. In these threads, RB makes it seem as though various C4C's are saying stuff against others. In my case, MWM says amongst other things 'I think he's still finding it hard no longer being in the Countdown spotlight, not just in general but particularly as the 'young prodigy' type character since Eoin was on'.

This is just ridiculous.

Happened 2 me 2

Oliver Garner wrote:There is stuff posted about lots of forumites including myself, by RB, in an attempt to

1) Slander us about things which we may have done which may not have been approved of by all, through a mock up of C4C called the sancty. In my case it was the Facebook group I made taking the piss out of Kirk making excuses for not winning the duel everyday. Looking back on it, the group does seem a bit silly to me, but still he's going OTT.
2) Making it seem as though people from C4C hate others. In these threads, RB makes it seem as though various C4C's are saying stuff against others. In my case, MWM says amongst other things 'I think he's still finding it hard no longer being in the Countdown spotlight, not just in general but particularly as the 'young prodigy' type character since Eoin was on'.

This is just ridiculous.

It sure is ridiculous but its not a mock up Oli

Someone sent me a link earlier to a kind of private C4C room called The Sanctum, which contains some pretty bilious stuff about me and quite a few other Countdowners who probably have no idea how much of a ripping they're getting.

Can't say it's a complete shock, but it's certainly any eye-opener. Boys will be boys i guess, but this level of cowardice is pretty awesome. Still, each to their own.

You should see what they're saying in The Sanctum about this.

It's a private conversation. If anyone here never says anything in private that they wouldn't want repeated in public, let him cast the first stone. (Or her.)

Private conversations are fine and all, but this kind of casts a different light on the endless criticism the forum used to get for having an 'in-crowd', after all that's pretty much exactly what this is.

Innis Carson wrote:Private conversations are fine and all, but this kind of casts a different light on the endless criticism the forum used to get for having an 'in-crowd', after all that's pretty much exactly what this is.

Any crowd has different groups of friends. I happen to run this site, which means my group of friends gets a private forum on here. Other groups have to do their own thing. What's the difference?

Innis Carson wrote:Private conversations are fine and all, but this kind of casts a different light on the endless criticism the forum used to get for having an 'in-crowd', after all that's pretty much exactly what this is.

Yes, I remember a lot of that stuff going on when I first joined the forum, arguments repeated ad nauseum,people flouncing off(usually with a long winded diatribe) etc. A lot of that stuff seems pretty sanctimonious now. There's irony for you.

Charlie Reams wrote:It's a private conversation. If anyone here never says anything in private that they wouldn't want repeated in public, let him cast the first stone. (Or her.)

This, and only this.

D Eadie wrote:Someone sent me a link earlier to a kind of private C4C room called The Sanctum, which contains some pretty bilious stuff about me and quite a few other Countdowners who probably have no idea how much of a ripping they're getting.

Can't say it's a complete shock, but it's certainly any eye-opener. Boys will be boys i guess, but this level of cowardice is pretty awesome. Still, each to their own.

I've got twenty pages of private messages in my account here from all sorts of people, about all sorts of people and things. Am I being cowardly by not posting them all in public?

After what what said here about the Gandiseeg forum, I think it makes interesting reading.

Gavin Chipper wrote:After what what said here about the Gandiseeg forum, I think it makes interesting reading.

That's a public forum. Anyone can read it. That's completely different to a private discussion.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:Private conversations are fine and all, but this kind of casts a different light on the endless criticism the forum used to get for having an 'in-crowd', after all that's pretty much exactly what this is.

Any crowd has different groups of friends. I happen to run this site, which means my group of friends gets a private forum on here. Other groups have to do their own thing. What's the difference?

Yeah I don't see the problem with a separate forum. I think the difference is the amount of hate and that some of the stuff is really fucking nasty. Maybe it isn't and I'm just being an over-sensitive bitch for a change but some of it made me feel kind of disappointed. I read c4c all the time and have for ages and I liked nearly everyone who has been insulting people. It's a fair point we all do and say shit that we probably regret but nobody seems sorry or admits that some of the stuff is hurtful. Yeah it bothered me a bit more than it should but I've read c4c for literally years and reading that stuff totally altered my opinions of people. Just what I think about it, feel free to insult me in the forum or whatever you want.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:After what what said here about the Gandiseeg forum, I think it makes interesting reading.

That's a public forum. Anyone can read it. That's completely different to a private discussion.

Quite. Somebody's account wasn't hacked to gain that information. A bit different to a unique handful of people personally picked to take part in conversations, isn't it? I hardly think Gandiseeg has a strict entry policy considering it's actually got a lot more members than c4countdown has (and I'd wager well over 90% are spambots). Yeah, it wasn't my account that I logged in under, but then it wasn't someone else's account that I stole. It was just a generic random account set up by somebody, accepted without question, and handed to me. Do I need to elaborate on the difference more than that for you Gavin?

Besides, the point of all that wasn't "group A are talking about group B behind their backs". It was "group A didn't like the way group B did things, so instead they wanted to go elsewhere and do those exact things group B were doing themselves". I could excuse certain others missing that nuance, but you disappoint me Gevin

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:After what what said here about the Gandiseeg forum, I think it makes interesting reading.

That's a public forum. Anyone can read it. That's completely different to a private discussion.

Quite. Somebody's account wasn't hacked to gain that information. A bit different to a unique handful of people personally picked to take part in conversations, isn't it? I hardly think Gandiseeg has a strict entry policy considering it's actually got a lot more members than c4countdown has (and I'd wager well over 90% are spambots). Yeah, it wasn't my account that I logged in under, but then it wasn't someone else's account that I stole. It was just a generic random account set up by somebody, accepted without question, and handed to me. Do I need to elaborate on the difference more than that for you Gavin?

Besides, the point of all that wasn't "group A are talking about group B behind their backs". It was "group A didn't like the way group B did things, so instead they wanted to go elsewhere and do those exact things group B were doing themselves". I could excuse certain others missing that nuance, but you disappoint me Gevin

The situations aren't exactly the same. But even so, I think both were cases of people engaging in discussions that they thought others wouldn't read, with similar topics coming out of it. Can't say it bothers me massively, but I think it was worth mentioning as I think some comparison is possible. I'm not going to suddenly start hating you or anyone else as a result of this.

But at least we now know that "the clique" is not just some abstract concept with vague boundaries!

Jimmy Gough wrote:It's a fair point we all do and say shit that we probably regret but nobody seems sorry or admits that some of the stuff is hurtful.

Can't speak for others mate, but I have to say I stand by anything that I've written in there. I accept that Chris may have been a little surprised, but I think he hinted in his OP that he got the impression I wasn't particularly nuts about him, and I think he knew (some of) the reasons why (I think that's what he was hinting at, anyway) Other than that, I'd be surprised if you find an instance where I've been 'different' with regards to anyone or anything. Anyone I've ripped on, I'm pretty sure I've done the same in public.

Bear in mind that we all insult the shit out of each other as well. I've been called a cunt more than anyone on here, I'm sure

I think if that's how you guys want to spend your time then so be it, but on the whole it looks pretty damned immature and pathetic to say the least. Young red-blooded males bitching like a bunch of schoolgirls about people, and some of the victims are barely but just kids. It's not big or brave or clever.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:That's a public forum. Anyone can read it. That's completely different to a private discussion.

Quite. Somebody's account wasn't hacked to gain that information. A bit different to a unique handful of people personally picked to take part in conversations, isn't it? I hardly think Gandiseeg has a strict entry policy considering it's actually got a lot more members than c4countdown has (and I'd wager well over 90% are spambots). Yeah, it wasn't my account that I logged in under, but then it wasn't someone else's account that I stole. It was just a generic random account set up by somebody, accepted without question, and handed to me. Do I need to elaborate on the difference more than that for you Gavin?

Besides, the point of all that wasn't "group A are talking about group B behind their backs". It was "group A didn't like the way group B did things, so instead they wanted to go elsewhere and do those exact things group B were doing themselves". I could excuse certain others missing that nuance, but you disappoint me Gevin

The situations aren't exactly the same. But even so, I think both were cases of people engaging in discussions that they thought others wouldn't read, with similar topics coming out of it. Can't say it bothers me massively, but I think it was worth mentioning as I think some comparison is possible. I'm not going to suddenly start hating you or anyone else as a result of this.

But at least we now know that "the clique" is not just some abstract concept with vague boundaries!

What I'm hearing loud and clear is that you want to be in the clique. Look, if you want to be in the clique just come to COLIN and me and Charlie will teach you the "secret handshake". You won't need your hands for it.

Jimmy Gough wrote:It's a fair point we all do and say shit that we probably regret but nobody seems sorry or admits that some of the stuff is hurtful. Yeah it bothered me a bit more than it should but I've read c4c for literally years and reading that stuff totally altered my opinions of people. Just what I think about it, feel free to insult me in the forum or whatever you want.

Some of the stuff is hurtful but I personally don't regret any post I've made on there apart from the one I wrote about above which stands alone as one I would retract. Apart from that one, I speak for myself here, I don't have any problem with people reading what I wrote about them (some are exaggerated for comic effect) but none of them include anything that I wouldn't say to their face. It's just politer to say it behind their back.

Maybe I'm in a boat of my own but I've definitely said bad things in there about people I actually like. I do that in real life as well. It's just shock-value comedy. That said, I've said bad things about people I actually don't like, so the boundaries are probably blurred.

D Eadie wrote:It's not big or brave or clever.

Who on earth would think it was?

Jon O'Neill wrote:Maybe I'm in a boat of my own but I've definitely said bad things in there about people I actually like. I do that in real life as well. It's just shock-value comedy. That said, I've said bad things about people I actually don't like, so the boundaries are probably blurred.

Oh, and where's my £20?

Jon O'Neill wrote:Maybe I'm in a boat of my own but I've definitely said bad things in there about people I actually like.

Is this one such occasion?

I can understand bitching if you're sitting around having drinks and conversation drifts to a particular person, but I think it's a completely different thing to create a forum specifically for that purpose. It's the level of organisation and the recognition that there is a lot of hatred to dispense that bothers me.

That and the fact I wasn't invited.

Martin Bishop wrote:I can understand bitching if you're sitting around having drinks and conversation drifts to a particular person, but I think it's a completely different thing to create a forum specifically for that purpose. It's the level of organisation and the recognition that there is a lot of hatred to dispense that bothers me.

The forum wasn't specifically set up to dispense hatred, it was set up as a place for us to chat about things that weren't suitable to the forum, for whatever reason (there are plenty of threads that aren't simply "why is $person a dick?", and it seems even some of them got reposted, for whatever reason). It seems pretty natural to me that it then also serves the purpose of being a place to vent about people, especially when you consider the unusual social dynamic of an Internet forum. (I've been a member of several forums over the years, and I would never have been surprised to learn of this sort of thing going on.)

Martin Bishop wrote:I can understand bitching if you're sitting around having drinks and conversation drifts to a particular person, but I think it's a completely different thing to create a forum specifically for that purpose.

The Sanctum is a pub.

Martin Bishop wrote:It's the level of organisation and the recognition that there is a lot of hatred to dispense that bothers me.

I highly doubt it takes much organising to set up a sub-forum and invite people.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Maybe I'm in a boat of my own but I've definitely said bad things in there about people I actually like.

Is this one such occasion?

Not that one, no.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Not that one, no.

Ryan Taylor wrote:The Sanctum is a pub.

Nah, c4c is the pub.

The Sanctum is more

I always thought of the sanctum as a place for idle chat about things/people with no consequences on what you said, which means you'd sometimes say a lot of things you didn't truthfully mean just for the sake (like Jono said) shock humour. On the whole, I don't regret what I put in there. I say this because the stuff in the sanctum if meant to be private.

Its a really sensitive situation, so I don't want to say too much, but I think what you say behind closed doors about others shouldn't be taken seriously when heard through the walls. You say things about people in a certain context because they will never read it. Because you "know" they or those close to them will never see it, putting harsh things about people suddenly matters less because you know you wont be hurting their feelings. If we knew the stuff in there would have been exposed when we wouldn't have put a lot of the stuff we did in there because we wouldn't want to hurt peoples feelings.

Its also interesting to hear what people think about Richard doing this (Ignoring the fact that he hacked Kirk).
Say he happened to have somehow stumbled upon the place, do you think he was right or not to make the stuff in there public?

Also, @ Chris Davies, sorry if you felt upset about my contribution to the topic on you in there, I think you are a great guy, and you are one of my favourite people off of the forum, but yeah, just please bear in mind what I've put earlier in this post.

JackHurst wrote:Its also interesting to hear what people think about Richard doing this (Ignoring the fact that he hacked Kirk)

I don't think that fact can or should be ignored. That stuff wasn't 'out there' to be stumbled upon. He hacked Kirk's email account, forum account and apterous account (which is a paid-for account, remember). You should feel no differently to how you'd feel about him posting Kirk's private messages or emails, that's effectively what he's done.

There should be a law against that sort of thing...

JackHurst wrote:I always thought of the sanctum as a place for idle chat about things/people with no consequences on what you said, which means you'd sometimes say a lot of things you didn't truthfully mean just for the sake (like Jono said) shock humour. On the whole, I don't regret what I put in there. I say this because the stuff in the sanctum if meant to be private.

Its a really sensitive situation, so I don't want to say too much, but I think what you say behind closed doors about others shouldn't be taken seriously when heard through the walls. You say things about people in a certain context because they will never read it. Because you "know" they or those close to them will never see it, putting harsh things about people suddenly matters less because you know you wont be hurting their feelings. If we knew the stuff in there would have been exposed when we wouldn't have put a lot of the stuff we did in there because we wouldn't want to hurt peoples feelings.

Its also interesting to hear what people think about Richard doing this (Ignoring the fact that he hacked Kirk).
Say he happened to have somehow stumbled upon the place, do you think he was right or not to make the stuff in there public?

Also, @ Chris Davies, sorry if you felt upset about my contribution to the topic on you in there, I think you are a great guy, and you are one of my favourite people off of the forum, but yeah, just please bear in mind what I've put earlier in this post.

Don't worry about it Jack. Compared to what some people said about me it's actually quite adorable.

LOL DRAMA

What is Richard Brittain's purpose? I know there's lots of back story that I don't really know detail about, but this is cunty in the extreme.

It's OK to be spiteful as long as nobody finds out is a pretty lame excuse. If you think it's alright to say things like that about people then that's fine. I suppose it's no big deal. I've always had a phobia of what people think of me and how to act and stuff. It kind of gets to the point where I don't want to open up to people because of things like that. I think it's my problem, this is just normal to say these things about people. I'll never understand it though. @ Michael I think this forum is different from other cos it's more personal interaction and you open up yourself to criticism by going on TV. Also there are events and stuff and everyone is on Facebook etc.

If you think it's OK to treat people like that, then yeah whatever. I'll never get it though, People suck.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote:It's the level of organisation and the recognition that there is a lot of hatred to dispense that bothers me.

I highly doubt it takes much organising to set up a sub-forum and invite people.

An internet forum is naturally a more organised environment than a pub. There aren't many pubs where you can have a separate room for bitching about Sue Sanders and then another for Richard Britain. It's also a more conscious decision to start a thread about someone and there's more opportunity to stop yourself.

Michael Wallace wrote:The forum wasn't specifically set up to dispense hatred, it was set up as a place for us to chat about things that weren't suitable to the forum, for whatever reason (there are plenty of threads that aren't simply "why is $person a dick?", and it seems even some of them got reposted, for whatever reason). It seems pretty natural to me that it then also serves the purpose of being a place to vent about people, especially when you consider the unusual social dynamic of an Internet forum. (I've been a member of several forums over the years, and I would never have been surprised to learn of this sort of thing going on.)

I thought about adding a disclaimer that the forum might have been created for other off-forummy things, then I looked again at Richard's copy of the forum and decided to remove it. Taking Richard's version of the forum as gospel may not thave been the best idea. I'll cede to your better knowledge of the sanctum and apologise if I have misrepresented the place.

Jon Corby wrote:

JackHurst wrote:Its also interesting to hear what people think about Richard doing this (Ignoring the fact that he hacked Kirk)

I don't think that fact can or should be ignored. That stuff wasn't 'out there' to be stumbled upon. He hacked Kirk's email account, forum account and apterous account (which is a paid-for account, remember). You should feel no differently to how you'd feel about him posting Kirk's private messages or emails, that's effectively what he's done.

There should be a law against that sort of thing...

You're right. What he did was unacceptable. I've never had a problem with him personally, but I don't condone this.

Michael Wallace wrote: The forum wasn't specifically set up to dispense hatred

I find this difficult to believe considering its described as "The Sanctum - Virtually twat free".


All in all, its just utterly childish, cowardly and pathetic. The same applies to RB.

James Doohan wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: The forum wasn't specifically set up to dispense hatred

I find this difficult to believe considering its described as "The Sanctum - Virtually twat free".

Well that's up to you. I'll see if Charlie is happy to repeat his "welcome to the Sanctum" post in public, but in the meantime feel free to think me a liar (in public, or private, I don't mind, and won't think you 'cowardly' either way!).

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Doohan wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: The forum wasn't specifically set up to dispense hatred

I find this difficult to believe considering its described as "The Sanctum - Virtually twat free".

Well that's up to you. I'll see if Charlie is happy to repeat his "welcome to the Sanctum" post in public, but in the meantime feel free to think me a liar (in public, or private, I don't mind, and won't think you 'cowardly' either way!).

I don't consider you a liar but meh, make of it what you will. Cowardly wasn't in reference to setting up or using of a private forum, more to do with a certain number of threads.

I'm stunned.

I've been a contributor to this and preceding forums for possibly longer than anyone else. I may not have gone along with everything that happens, but by and large there's open, intelligent debate, and the good guys win in the end. Anyone can say anything, and you stand or fall in the open. And now it seems the real stuff goes on behind closed doors.

If that's the case, count me out. Talk among yourselves.

(I see this is my 500th post. Nice round number.)

I'm curious. Of the various offended parties, would you feel differently if what had been said had been said amongst the same group of friends in a pub, secretly recorded and the transcripts uploaded to the Internet? How about a private conversation between you and your partner, where you've complained about some irritating colleague? I'm genuinely interested to know whether it makes a difference, and if so, why.

(In case it wasn't obvious, it would make no difference to me, and I wouldn't be surprised (or offended) to find people had been insulting me behind my back - I'm sure it has, and will continue, to happen.)

Charlie Reams wrote:It's a private conversation. If anyone here never says anything in private that they wouldn't want repeated in public, let him cast the first stone. (Or her.)

Well I throw like a girl but I am chucking a big fucking rock at your sneaky ginger head.
Publish all the shit you have written about me and to get the ball rolling.
I have privately accused you of being a bully to the weak (and women) and of being a closet mysogenist I HAVE ALSO SAID THAT IT WAS A SHAME COS WHAT YOU've done on Apterous etc. is truly remarkable.
So i request that any shit or whatever is made public fifthwith.
Jokes...............etc

Always a vbit slow on the uptake, I JUST READ ALL YOUR PRIVATE POSTS ABOUT ME.
I think a ginger cull is in order (oh and ginger ass licker Jon Corby) oh and Ben, apropos to nothing in particular have you ever picked your teeth up from the floor with broken fingers?
Anyway, I FEEL LIKE i have been savaged by a herd of sheep.
I will also make it my personal goal to get Apterous close down for copywrite infringement.
Oh and Charlie boy, could I HAVE MY £15 OR PART THEREOF BACK AS i am sure you dont want 'cunts' like me polluting your beloved Countdown clone.
Mind you if everyone of you pathetic wankers (probably sums most of your sex lives up succinctly) foe me you won't have to read it.

Jono I'm goona kill you last.
Oh and in case anyone is wondering why ive gone radio rental see here http://www.gandiseeg.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1081