Earlier in the week I received an unsolicited PM from Sidney Anson (Swenet; Willy West). It followed the discussion on the main forum where he admitted taking an image of the Egyptsearch moderator (Ausar/Tukuler) from Anson's private Facebook forum and sending to Egyptsearch poster Mike111. I expressed surprise and was critical of this. Anson reacted with characteristic defensiveness, and the conversation quickly deteriorated.
The ES moderator then part-deleted and closed the thread. The second page, which was removed, contained comments by Mike111, who, it's understood, the moderator is attempting to ban for racially inflammatory messaging. The deleted page also contained my references to a professional Egyptologist. The moderator has stated that posts by Mike111, as well as responses, would be deleted; as would discussions of exchanges with named professionals.
Later the same day, I received a PM from Sidney Anson, titled: "Try telling me that is not abuse."
Given the most recent history of our interaction on Egyptsearch and elsewhere, I was surprised that Anson would contact me. However, I thought I would communicate.
Essentially, Anson wanted me to criticise the current style of moderation at ES. I refused and he became accusatory.
Last night I sent an angry response telling him not to send me any further messages, and warning him that I would name him in the main ES forum.
I've just checked my messages and he's sent me another message. As advised, I've now posted his name.
The PMs from during the week as follows:
From Anson:2nd June
"He deleted all posts except the one where you say something favorable about him. He deletes the entire exchange while he leaves all the posts by others that call him a Jew and other insults untouched. Then he tries to have the last word by attacking and making sure all posts that defend against his attacks are deleted.
This is exactly what he did when I warned him over 10 times that I would give his picture to Mike if he didn't stop posting Mike's information. this is what happened countless times when he deleted my posts before that. I never once posted his private information all those times he deleted my posts before he started messing with Mike.
But you say he's not abusive, right? I could only have been motivated by revenge, right?
Okay."
My response:02 June "Regardless of whatever you think of his moderation style, you should not have released his picture. What are you doing showing sympathy to someone like Mike111 anyway? Had Brandon Pilcher been moderator and taken Tukluler's approach to dealing with Mike, I'm not sure you have intervened, particularly in the way you did."
Anson: 02 June "How can you have a moderation style when you don't have the authorization to moderate in the first place.
I have the entire thread documented, I can show how many times he deleted the posts in which I criticized and told him to stop posting Mike's information before I had enough and did what he did to Mike. For it to have been an act of revenge I would have to have staged the incident, including his decision to start posting Mike's information as well as the many times he deleted the posts in which I told him to stop harassing Mike prior to letting him know enough is enough.
Look at you talking about "sympathy" and Brandon.Nowhere in the world is checking an abusive and rogue person in power seen as being a matter of sympathy. Your invocation of Brandon equally proves how out of touch you are. If Brandon had Tukuler's track record and did that to Mike, I wouldn't have done that to Brandon out of sheer loyalty, but if someone else did it back to him after warning him numerous times, I would have chalked it up to Karma.
I have said my piece. Do what you have to do."
My response: 03 June
quote:I wouldn't have done that to Brandon out of sheer loyalty
Well there you go. You dislike Tukuler, so released his photo. You like Brandon, so wouldn't have. You're being selective. It's unfair.
Anson: 03 June "Wow. Just wow. The “unfairness” you speak of is completely beside the point of whether Tukuler (or anyone else for that matter who repeatedly stoops so low, including Brandon), needs to be held accountable and reminded that he is not going to get away with such repeated unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. That I don’t rat out friends doesn’t mean I don’t expect karma to take care of them one way or another and let justice take its course.
You, on the other hand, in your blind devotion, even refuse to acknowledge that your new friend is completely out of control, which his own associates here will, and have, attested to. They have spoken out against his erratic, unhinged behavior. Not too long ago he told Djehuti he was lucky that lioness wasn't in front of him to slice his face with a razor.
Please come back in your next PM talking about my "unfairness" for not ratting out my friends so I can see whether your mind is truly as warped as seems to be the case after these remarks. I really hope, for your sake, that your perverted sense of "fairness" doesn't compel you to rat out your family members like you expect me to do to people I associate with."
My response: 03 June "Step back a little. You were in the wrong."
Anson: 03 June "If you can get a consensus to say I was wrong for my part then so be it. I will own up to it in that case. Good luck with that. The difference between me and him is that there was already a consensus in that thread that Tukuler was wrong before I had even said a word, while no one said a thing when I stopped Tukuler dead in his tracks. Either way, you've yet to comment on the fact that your new friend is out of control and has a past of unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. Which, of course, you won't.
You can return now to being Tukuler's stooge and contacting him whenever you want Anglo's posts removed that are critical of you. Both of you condone self-serving censorship. Both of you (apparently) condone unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. Yep, you never did criticise Tukuler for going berserk and posting my personal info, did you? In fact, you reposted it several times yourself, You have posted other personal info of mine numerous times in the past, also, arguably, unprovoked.
You have a lot of nerve to insist I'm wrong and not say a word about Tukuler's and your own actions, I'll give you that."
My response:03 June "Why get a group of together to attest to something obvious - that you were wrong to send his image.
I've never asked Tukuler to delete Anglo's posts. I did ask for him to ban Anglo several months ago after he made something up about me, but you can work out that he didn't follow through with the request - Anglo also contacted him about me - don't know what was said.
Didn't you dare me to post our fb correspondence? Didn't you say you wanted me to?
If by your personal information you mean that extraordinary e-mail you sent him, yes I did repost it...after you called me a "lunatic"...
Bottom line is, you were wrong.
Anyway, why the intense dislike for Tukuler?"
Anson:03 June "Well, either you told him to selectively rip all of Anglo’s messages to shreds in the thread below or he did it for you. Don’t know what is sicker:
^What’s next, are you going to tell me that ravaging a thread like that, simply because he feels he can abuse whoever, whenever he wants to, is a matter of “moderation style”?
quote: that you were wrong to send his image.
Why? Let’s see you articulate *why* for once. We already know that your previous reasons for saying this have been debunked (I never disseminated his picture and I never did it out of revenge, which I can prove by the ample opportunities I gave him to back down, and by the PM I sent Mike). Now what? What is your next excuse to delegitimize the fact that I stopped an abusive tyrant who is completely out of control? You’re going to tell me Mike broke forum rules? I can debunk that as well. It was already agreed years ago by veteran posters that the ancient Egypt subforum would be governed by free speech and that the Mikes and Anglos would be allowed to post provided they don’t break any laws. What’s next? That Tukuler was right for going after Mike given Mike’s views? Tukuler has fiercely defended Mike’s albino theory against those who weren’t having it back in the day (which included me, BTW) in a thread in which he posted pseudo-science to advance Mike’s case that whites are albinos. He didn’t start attacking and banning Mike until Mike gradually started to include Africans in his rants. There goes another potential excuse to legitimize Tukuler’s pretext of why he went after Mike. Let's hear it. I just helped you out by eliminating the weak excuses.
quote: Didn't you dare me to post our fb correspondence? Didn't you say you wanted me to?
quote: yes I did repost it...after you called me a "lunatic"...
So when I do what you’ve done countless times, it’s principally wrong, no matter what. But when you do it, it’s not wrong per se? Is that what you’re telling me? Please tell me that’s not where you’re going with this."
My response: 03 June
quote: Well, either you told him to selectively rip all of Anglo’s messages to shreds in the thread below or he did it for you.
First I've heard of this. Maybe anglo had the same thing done to his e-mails as Mike. Don't care really, it's ultimately petty. Although it's good since anglo's sh1t would not be tolerated elsewhere, so no laments from me.
I didn't read the link - I'm bored enough as it is.
Don't think I want to get into a debate as to why it was wrong of you to send the image of one of your (private) forum members to someone they're at odds with. Is your self-righteousness so all-consuming that you can't see that?
I've never sent an image of you to someone you're at odds with. Did Tukuler explicitly dare you to do that?
And why do you have an intense dislike of Tukuler?"
Anson: 03 June "I never asked you to sympathize with Anglo, but your repeated indifference to Tukuler’s widespread abuses are duly noted.
quote: Don't think I want to get into a debate as to why it was wrong of you
I wouldn’t either. You have no leg to stand on; the only way you can make it seem wrong is by looking at it as an isolated act. That is precisely why you're reluctant now that the ball in your court; now you have to formulate a coherent sentence without the convenience of being able to fall back on "you're wrong just because".
quote: to send the image of one of your (private) forum members
Laughable attempt at sending me on a guilt trip. I just referenced all the times he posted personal information online. He posted stuff online directly from the FB group, including stuff from Brandon, whom he knew had nothing to do with this. Explain to me why FB is somehow a sacred, not to be violated red line when I do it.
quote: I've never sent an image of you to someone you're at odds with.
I really hope you’re not saying wrong when do it, in principle, but that it's again for you to do it with or without someone I dislike or after I dared you. Is that it?
quote: And why do you have an intense dislike of Tukuler?
It’s not about me disliking him. It’s about the demonstrable evidence of his abuses and sadistic tendencies (which were already posted, so your question seems redundant and obsolete), not my subjective feelings."
My response: 04 June
quote: I never asked you to sympathize with Anglo, but your repeated indifference to Tukuler’s widespread abuses are duly noted.
I'm actually indifferent to how the board is moderated, but if the likes of Anglo and Mike are banned, I'm not going to complain. The situation here though is that you're trying to get me to say something critical of Tukuler, which I sense you might use against him. On the whole, I think Tukuler does a good job, although I wish he'd taken action against Anglo and Mike much earlier. By the way, I don't know if there are many other boards where you could insult the moderator and not get banned -look at how you deleted Amun-Ra from your facebook group...
quote: I wouldn’t either. You have no leg to stand on; the only way you can make it seem wrong is by looking at it as an isolated act. That is precisely why you're reluctant now that the ball in your court; now you have to formulate a coherent sentence without the convenience of being able to fall back on "you're wrong just because".
This really isn't up for debate. You were wrong.
quote: Laughable attempt at sending me on a guilt trip. I just referenced all the times he posted personal information online. He posted stuff online directly from the FB group, including stuff from Brandon, whom he knew had nothing to do with this. Explain to me why FB is somehow a sacred, not to be violated red line when I do it.
Posting comments/views/opinions is one thing - releasing an image of someone, after they've trusted your administration, is something else.
It bespeaks that spiteful, self-righteous, calculating streak in you.
quote: I really hope you’re not saying wrong when do it, in principle, but that it's again for you to do it with or without someone I dislike or after I dared you. Is that it?
It's never right to send an image of someone to anyone else when it's not in the public domain. I was clearly commenting on your unconvincing equation of your actions with mine.
quote: It’s not about me disliking him. It’s about the demonstrable evidence of his abuses and sadistic tendencies (which were already posted, so your question seems redundant and obsolete), not my subjective feelings.
But it clearly is about your disliking him. It's visceral and I don't get why. You've already said that you wouldn't have done the same to Brandon, so it's everything to do with your subjective feelings.
How come you can openly dialogue with Anglo, overcoming your hostility towards him, a freak who holds a great deal of animus towards black people, but you can't do the same with Tukuler?
Has Tukuler really caused you greater offence than Anglo?"
Anson: 04 June "Look man, this is going nowhere. Most of what you say is simply not true. Even worse, it's demonstrably not true. Let's put it all into perspective:
1) Your talk about me taking revenge on Tukuler using what you write here. Look at how many times he attacked me and how many times I retaliated vs how many times he retaliated when I did something to him. His ratio is close to 1:1. What is my ratio, pray tell. What is my ratio for taking revenge on you when you did all that? What is your ratio for retaliating with private information when you feel cornered? Again, your ratio is pretty much 1:1. You are clearly projecting here. When you talk about suspecting me to take revenge on Tukuler with what you say here, you are simply talking about what you and Tukuler would have done. This is a page directly out of your own book of dirty tactics. You talked to Anglo and the first thing you did is post the conversation where he talks about his mental health on ES. Aside from whether it was right or wrong in that instant, that is YOUR MO, not mine. You and Tukuler have the most dirty posting styles out there. Just look at the exchange that was deleted two days ago. I remind you about your posting of Anglo's data to "put things in perspective" and the first thing you do is post private information to retaliate. You and Tukuler are everything you accuse me of (which explains why you see no wrong in what he does). Go on, keep forfeiting what little credibility you have left by only seeing addressing faults when it's convenient.
2) In everyday life they have a word for when a raging lunatic who enjoys asymmetric power and harassment, is stopped by a third party who empowers his victims with his own sadistic tactics. They tend to call that poetic justice. Give me one real life precedent in which the public had an unfavorable reaction to what I did in that context. Good luck.
3) What did I do to Amun? Amun was invited on the condition that he'd contribute. He was deleted for violating that rule, which you already know from the conversations we had. You're just making up sh!t. His defiant and provocative posts were never deleted.
4) Again, you're simply confused re: the posting of Tukuler's image. He never entrusted it to my "administration". The image is from his own isolated FB account. Tukuler had his image still up on FB when he posted Mike's personal information. You're free to have your beliefs about me being wrong (I'm not out to convince anyone that I was right), but don't make up sh!t. Not only are you confused, you're opinionated, uninformed and you clearly have an axe to grind. If there is something calculated about what I did, you'll have to specify, because I'm beginning to suspect you're seeing things.
quote: Has Tukuler really caused you greater offence than Anglo?
Both you and Tukuler have. Like I said, you are ignorant and you're ignorant about the baffling extent of your ignorance.
I never liked Tukuler, but I made him a mod in the FB group. I never deleted him for being a deadbeat bum and never posting there. When he was a mod in the FB group we clashed numerous times on ES, which I never let carry over to the FB group. How does that fit into your narrative of my treatment of him being visceral? I didn't retaliate when he posted my message. I didn't delete him from the FB group until I got tired of him coming on the FB group to leech and at the same time attacking it while here on ES. I can only recall him posting two papers, the last one included the subtle hint that his paper was not to be posted on ES. When he got back on to ES he started grandstanding and attacking the FB group over the same secrecy he asked us to apply to the paper he posted. Then suspicions started to pile up about him gossiping. So yeah, I then consulted with someone else and deleted him. I could care less about what you make of that.
Your objective to make my treatment of him seem visceral is just a figment of your uninformed and opinionated imagination. You refuse to look at facts, in fact, it's clear that you have no interest in facts. You know nothing about the politics or history of this board. Anglo did the same thing Mike did--most of what they did was permissible under ES rules. When it wasn't, their threads were removed. I don't have to like what either of them post or the beliefs they hold. I can't say the same about what you and Tukuler have done. Both of you have broken more laws than either Mike or Anglo did. If you want examples of visceral reactions, look at your own posting history when you're cornered with on topic arguments."
My response: 04 June "^ You're boring me now. All this petty message-board crap.
Bottom line is, you were bang out of order releasing his image. So bloody wrong.
Thing is, you bullsh1t. Releasing your FB comments proved that spectacularly. Cornered with on topic arguments? Like when you argued that anyone who criticised XXXX XXXXs conclusion on the race of the Egyptians was in the wrong? When your own FB comments suggested otherwise?
Before you say you had a change of mind on XXXX XXXX, I'll tell you I'm not convinced. You now say: Kemp accepted the Egyptians were African, but that that wasn't enough for me, and that I was at fault for insisting on the term 'black'. I experimented with the other approach. He failed. Given his reaction to race neutral descriptions and depictions of ancient Egyptians, it's odd you had a sudden change of mind. His reaction to Keita's "Somali-like" description; his attempt at deflecting ancient Egyptians as "indigenous Africans", whilst using the term "indigenous" in reference to the Sudanese (even Lioness saw this as problematic); his reaction to facial reconstructions I sent him; his comments on the Liverpool Museum poster; his bringing in the Amarna anthropological team to try to undermine the data from the X-Ray Atlas;the "bullshit concession" - as you termed it - over the Rosung quote I sent him on Nubian/Upper Egyptian cranio-facial homogeneity. If he was at ease with the idea of the Egyptians as Africans, then how strange that he should have had difficulties with any of the above? Let's not forget the facial reconstructions he sent me, which you questioned. Maybe you've forgotten his ludicrous suggestion that ancient Egyptian preference for light-skinned women, as informed by tomb murals, kept the overall population light?
You were privy to his e-mail responses right up near the end of our FB private correspondence, and still, even at that late stage, referred to him as being one in a long line of "manipulators" and having wormed away.
So I don't know if I can take your change of mind at face value. There seems to be something else at work. Not quite sure what, but I sense it stems from a certain friction that arose towards the end of our communication, and my rebuffing your advice on how to continue with the Kemp correspondence. You suggested that I drop the term 'black' in favour of non-racial terms (as I've said above, he wasn't accepting of those either) and I sensed that your ego didn't like it, setting the scene for whatever happened on the FB forum. Oh yeah, thanks to Beyoku for needlessly escalating a discussion on the ambiguities of blackness into a stupid argument. I went to bed on a civil discussion and next day, when I log in again, he's left a comment suggesting that I'd run away!I went into him, and I could tell that you didn't like it - you'd taken a back seat, but intervened when his argument collapsed, leaving you and I in open confrontation. I have a feeling that this is where this sudden endorsement of XXXX comes from. Not out of principle, but out of opposition.
So when you openly stated on the ES forum that (my)questioning XXXX's conclusion on the race of the Egyptians was ill-founded, I referenced your previous comments - you then dared me to post them, saying that you wanted me to...a bluff was called. Now you're pissed off, trying to force an equation between that and your releasing Tukuler's picture.
But you're right, this discussion is going nowhere."
Anson: 04 June
"You're making yourself out to be a complete joke. You specifically asked for it but when it turns out to not be what you wanted to hear, you turn a blind eye and say it bores you. You sound like a diva. No man I know asks a question, gets an answer and then spontaneously breaks up conversation by saying "I'm bored now". You have no idea how infantile you come across, do you?
Like I said, I have no problem admitting I was wrong if it can be established aside from you wanting to have your way, like some sort of spoiled prima donna. Telling me I'm wrong and then trying to back down when I ask why is what children do. Go ask adults in your environment whether that's a reasonable, mature thing to say.
Whether I was wrong or not for releasing Tukuler's image, I think there are a couple of things we can agree on:
1) What you did when you released Anglo's PM concerning his mental health and apology was 10 million times worse. I predict you will say that you have no sympathy for Anglo, but that reaction precisely what makes you such a morally bankrupt person; you genuinely think you get to decide when posting private information is morally objectionable or not.
2) Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better, see point 1 and 3. Literally everything from being vindictive, to being "self-righteous", to "being dead wrong", to acting from "visceral" place. Think about what you've said here. Not that I'm planning to leak what you say here, but the fact that you think I would need your condemnation of Tukuler's behavior to do some damage with your emails shows how warped your mind really is. Do you think your repeated condoning and benefiting from self-serving censorship and abuse of power reflects gracefully on you? That your own admission of knowingly cozying up to abusive moderators to get someone banned behind the scenes by bypassing forum rules is a good look?
3) Anglo and Mike both broke fewer forum rules and laws than you did. You're systematically breaking them. Hurts, doesn't it? Knowing that when you follow this train of thought and draw a conclusion from the forum rules, you're not what you make yourself out to be and deserve to be banned more than Mike and Anglo do.
4) When you weren't nervously ducking the question to articulate your argument, the only reason you could muster up for why it was wrong to post his image was that the source of the image was inappropriate. This still doesn't touch on why the act of posting it was wrong. What a joke.
My response: 05 June
"Gee, amongst your histrionic sh1t, it's unsurprising you made no reference to your unconvincing endorsement of XXXX XXXX...
When I saw that you'd messaged me several days ago, my first instinct was to tell you to fuc.k off since I'd previously come to the conclusion that you're a time-waster. But then I thought, no, let's see what he has to say...nothing has changed. You're still a lying, self-righteous little pric.k. Some inconsequential guy on the internet who thinks he's fuc.king infallible. Grow up.
quote: You're making yourself out to be a complete joke. You specifically asked for it but when it turns out to not be what you wanted to hear, you turn a blind eye and say it bores you. You sound like a diva. No man I know asks a question, gets an answer and then spontaneously breaks up conversation by saying "I'm bored now". You have no idea how infantile you come across, do you?"
Do you really think most men would adopt your unprincipled sh1tty positions? Do you think most men would even bother reading and responding to your crazed sh1t? Beyond telling you to fu.ck off? Seriously?
quote: "Like I said, I have no problem admitting I was wrong if it can be established aside from you wanting to have your way, like some sort of spoiled prima donna. Telling me I'm wrong and then trying to back down when I ask why is what children do. Go ask adults in your environment whether that's a reasonable, mature thing to say."
Oh, fu.cking hell. "Like I said..." blah, blah, fuc.king blah. You were in the wrong. Deal with it. Go speak to someone in an "adult environment" and ask them whether what you did was acceptable. Go on, show them the messages you've sent me this week. Show them that freaky message you sent Tukuler. Show them examples of your interaction with The Explorer, Akachi, Tukuler, and Amun-Ra. See what they say. You won't because you know you'd look like a fu.cking weirdo.
quote: "1) What you did when you released Anglo's PM concerning his mental health and apology was 10 million times worse. I predict you will say that you have no sympathy for Anglo, but that reaction precisely what makes you such a morally bankrupt person; you genuinely think you get to decide when posting private information is morally objectionable or not."
The hyperbole and exaggeration:"10 million times worse". The overwrought fuc.king drama. What are you fu.cking 9 years old or something? Your concern for Smith comes across as bullsh1t - especially since you threatened to make a webpage on him and followed him around the internet, at a time when I didn't give a sh1t. Yet now you criticise me. Hypocritical bullshit. Regardless, I'm unmoved. It's also self-serving and delusional to draw an equation between Tukuler and Oliver Smith. You're so full of sh1t, it's why I'm not really engaging with you.
quote: "2) Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better, see point 1 and 3. Literally everything from being vindictive, to being "self-righteous", to "being dead wrong", to acting from "visceral" place. Think about what you've said here. Not that I'm planning to leak what you say here, but the fact that you think I would need your condemnation of Tukuler's behavior to do some damage with your emails shows how warped your mind really is. Do you think your repeated condoning and benefiting from self-serving censorship and abuse of power reflects gracefully on you? That your own admission of knowingly cozying up to abusive moderators to get someone banned behind the scenes by bypassing forum rules is a good look?
Beyond parody. "Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better.." Petty-minded bullsh1tter. Get a fuc.king life. How the hell do I "benefit" from moderation? What does this even mean? How does "cozying up to abusive moderators" give any "benefit" to anyone?
quote: "3) Anglo and Mike both broke fewer forum rules and laws than you did. You're systematically breaking them. Hurts, doesn't it? Knowing that when you follow this train of thought and draw a conclusion from the forum rules, you're not what you make yourself out to be and deserve to be banned more than Mike and Anglo do."
Oh, I'm so hurt! Rules? WTF are you talking about? Get a sense of perspective. This must be what happens when you devote your life to posting on message boards. Grow the fu.ck up. I really wouldn't care if I got banned from Egyptsearch. I can't believe you attribute it so much significance.
quote: 4) When you weren't nervously ducking the question to articulate your argument, the only reason you could muster up for why it was wrong to post his image was that the source of the image was inappropriate. This still doesn't touch on why the act of posting it was wrong. What a joke. "
There's no argument to be had. You were wrong to post Tukuler's image, which you did out of malice and a petty grudge. Deal with it. I'm not going to chase the logic of a parochial, deranged, bullsh1tter. Most adults wouldn't. You're compelled by some strange psychological tic to continually be seen to be right - no matter how fu.cking ludicrous you end up appearing. That e-mail you sent Tukuler showed just what kind of a jumped-up, ego-driven, sociopathic t1t you are. What ails you, man? Maybe it's the result of spending half your sorry fuc.king message board-addicted life playing at Shomarka Keita.
Sh1t,I can't believe that I'm even freakin' engaging with you.
Let me tell you something. If you send me any further messages, just one more fuc.king example of your pathetic sh1t, I will post your name on the main ES forum. Let's take this out into the open where people can see who we are. Lot's of fun then to be had collating historic examples of your sh1tty posts and linking them to you, no?
Now.
Fuc.k off."
Anson: 06 June "That last email got your panties up in a bunch, didn't it, prima donna? Did it hit a sensitive nerve? Tell me, who is more of a diva in your household, your wife, your daughters or you?
From your visceral reactions and emotional outbursts, it looks like you never had a male figure in your life.
You really need a hug, don't you, Carla Jenner?"
------------------------------------------ My response: 06 June "It's done."
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't care less what Needle Dick the Bug Fucker unable to satisfy a normal sized woman thinks, says, or tries to do. He is also totally impotent here but is still welcome to post non ad hominem messages to the forum in general and even low key ad hominem to those who don't mind.
BTW for those who missed seeing the now infamous private unavailable to the public FB img I put up specifically and exclusively for the FB ES where (in my naivety) I trusted its creator and was never any kind of mod there whatsoever:
As for why the unwarranted hatred from someone whom I have aided: I do not like thee Dr. Fell The reason why I cannot tell But this I know and know full well I do not like thee Dr. Fell
Hoo haa, heap big deal.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Needle dick the bug fugker" ??? Sage, I expect better from you. You are the "moderator "
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know exactly what happened between Mike and Tukuler that set this all off, but I don't see anything about those photos that would be worth hiding. The one on the left I recognize as Tukuler's FB avatar, which I don't believe can be hidden from public browsing, and I can't tell which one of the dudes in the photo on the right is him. As far as "doxxing" goes, it's awfully merciful and restrained, especially if it was meant to teach Tukuler a lesson in empathy.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Needle dick the bug fugker" ??? Sage, I expect better from you. You are the "moderator "
" Dammit Spock I'm a moderator not a role model"
Too bad so sad
I expected more out of you too
but what we see is what we get
but thx 4 t/chk my Cousin I really do appreciate it and I've missed you helping me keep my temper in check.
but you should know it was ol' Willie West himself who publicly posted the fact of his penile shortcomings whereas only by being a member of his FB could anyone have seen my imgs until I put them up here on ES about a week ago.
===
@ LieCentric
Your boyfriend wanted to divulge info only known to his FB membership. Googling al~Takruri facebook does not get you or anyone else to my img. So shut up talking that which you know nothing about why don't you.
Everything I posted about Mike was freely available via WHOIS applied to RealHistoryWW.
Googling alTakruri will never show my FB pic which against my better judgement I made available to one I trusted but who turned out to be a turd obsessing over me just waiting for the moment to vindictively stink on me.
BTW does WW give you a shot at his coloured gal cousin everytime you suck up to him like you just did?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, and I though this was a "dead" forum.. compared to others of more pristine righteousness.
But doesn't matter. I am sure we all agree that credible info on African bio-history is the more important thing. Hopefully now that the behind the scenes laundry is aired all can work together towards that end. Hell they need to give you a chance on the job. You only been on board less than 5 months. Is there a time limit on Mike returning?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My next objective is to get admin to at least cycle new registrations once a week before applicants tire of waiting and lose interest for in truth nothing I wish to accomplish will happen w/o continuous flow of new blood.
It's been 8 months since I tried subbing for Ausar at his personal request to me and only 2-3 months since I decided to moderate in my own right with my own vision w/o regard to any elements of Ausar's hands off/too busy/see ya every few years style.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on people. This is getting out of control!! Step back and take a deep breath. Before it was only heated debate personal and private information is crossing the line. Who knows what psychopath are out there monitoring the sites and is now licking his chops now he has pictures and addresses to go with it.
The "man" knows who you are , that is a given but do you want some psycho knowing also?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The man" is not you bro. The man could be the NSA or what ever apparatus. do you think this site is not monitored? we are not a threat so we are ignored as "white" noise. Lighten up! SMH
I am saying, putting people's private information out there puts them at risk by some psycho....is all cousin.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's wrong w/u USA guyz who were never a bona fide member of any liberation www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujZ-D8ioU0 movement? Sced o yr own shadow just the hint just the whisper of D Y MAN and u all become BABYBOYZ soiling yr nappies.
U give d y man a GOD COMPLEX "d y man is the man"
"d y man know ever ting"
This site monitored? For what? Get real.
But yeah Cuzn I advise all members to NOT post their own legal names or pics of themselves or any other dentfying vitals.
Me? I'm like Masekela I AM NOT AFRAID (much) to a certain point.
But i cyaan lighten up IT'S MY LIFE I'M FIGHTING FOR
ne'ermind the universe got heavenly bodies raitcher on Earth to talk to!
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ...and previously Kalonji on Egyptsearch.
Earlier in the week I received an unsolicited PM from Sidney Anson (Swenet; Willy West). It followed the discussion on the main forum where he admitted taking an image of the Egyptsearch moderator (Ausar/Tukuler) from Anson's private Facebook forum and sending to Egyptsearch poster Mike111. I expressed surprise and was critical of this. Anson reacted with characteristic defensiveness, and the conversation quickly deteriorated.
The ES moderator then part-deleted and closed the thread. The second page, which was removed, contained comments by Mike111, who, it's understood, the moderator is attempting to ban for racially inflammatory messaging. The deleted page also contained my references to a professional Egyptologist. The moderator has stated that posts by Mike111, as well as responses, would be deleted; as would discussions of exchanges with named professionals.
Later the same day, I received a PM from Sidney Anson, titled: "Try telling me that is not abuse."
Given the most recent history of our interaction on Egyptsearch and elsewhere, I was surprised that Anson would contact me. However, I thought I would communicate.
Essentially, Anson wanted me to criticise the current style of moderation at ES. I refused and he became accusatory.
Last night I sent an angry response telling him not to send me any further messages, and warning him that I would name him in the main ES forum.
I've just checked my messages and he's sent me another message. As advised, I've now posted his name.
The PMs from during the week as follows:
From Anson:2nd June
"He deleted all posts except the one where you say something favorable about him. He deletes the entire exchange while he leaves all the posts by others that call him a Jew and other insults untouched. Then he tries to have the last word by attacking and making sure all posts that defend against his attacks are deleted.
This is exactly what he did when I warned him over 10 times that I would give his picture to Mike if he didn't stop posting Mike's information. this is what happened countless times when he deleted my posts before that. I never once posted his private information all those times he deleted my posts before he started messing with Mike.
But you say he's not abusive, right? I could only have been motivated by revenge, right?
Okay."
My response:02 June "Regardless of whatever you think of his moderation style, you should not have released his picture. What are you doing showing sympathy to someone like Mike111 anyway? Had Brandon Pilcher been moderator and taken Tukluler's approach to dealing with Mike, I'm not sure you have intervened, particularly in the way you did."
Anson: 02 June "How can you have a moderation style when you don't have the authorization to moderate in the first place.
I have the entire thread documented, I can show how many times he deleted the posts in which I criticized and told him to stop posting Mike's information before I had enough and did what he did to Mike. For it to have been an act of revenge I would have to have staged the incident, including his decision to start posting Mike's information as well as the many times he deleted the posts in which I told him to stop harassing Mike prior to letting him know enough is enough.
Look at you talking about "sympathy" and Brandon.Nowhere in the world is checking an abusive and rogue person in power seen as being a matter of sympathy. Your invocation of Brandon equally proves how out of touch you are. If Brandon had Tukuler's track record and did that to Mike, I wouldn't have done that to Brandon out of sheer loyalty, but if someone else did it back to him after warning him numerous times, I would have chalked it up to Karma.
I have said my piece. Do what you have to do."
My response: 03 June
quote:I wouldn't have done that to Brandon out of sheer loyalty
Well there you go. You dislike Tukuler, so released his photo. You like Brandon, so wouldn't have. You're being selective. It's unfair.
Anson: 03 June "Wow. Just wow. The “unfairness” you speak of is completely beside the point of whether Tukuler (or anyone else for that matter who repeatedly stoops so low, including Brandon), needs to be held accountable and reminded that he is not going to get away with such repeated unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. That I don’t rat out friends doesn’t mean I don’t expect karma to take care of them one way or another and let justice take its course.
You, on the other hand, in your blind devotion, even refuse to acknowledge that your new friend is completely out of control, which his own associates here will, and have, attested to. They have spoken out against his erratic, unhinged behavior. Not too long ago he told Djehuti he was lucky that lioness wasn't in front of him to slice his face with a razor.
Please come back in your next PM talking about my "unfairness" for not ratting out my friends so I can see whether your mind is truly as warped as seems to be the case after these remarks. I really hope, for your sake, that your perverted sense of "fairness" doesn't compel you to rat out your family members like you expect me to do to people I associate with."
My response: 03 June "Step back a little. You were in the wrong."
Anson: 03 June "If you can get a consensus to say I was wrong for my part then so be it. I will own up to it in that case. Good luck with that. The difference between me and him is that there was already a consensus in that thread that Tukuler was wrong before I had even said a word, while no one said a thing when I stopped Tukuler dead in his tracks. Either way, you've yet to comment on the fact that your new friend is out of control and has a past of unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. Which, of course, you won't.
You can return now to being Tukuler's stooge and contacting him whenever you want Anglo's posts removed that are critical of you. Both of you condone self-serving censorship. Both of you (apparently) condone unprovoked and disproportionate attacks. Yep, you never did criticise Tukuler for going berserk and posting my personal info, did you? In fact, you reposted it several times yourself, You have posted other personal info of mine numerous times in the past, also, arguably, unprovoked.
You have a lot of nerve to insist I'm wrong and not say a word about Tukuler's and your own actions, I'll give you that."
My response:03 June "Why get a group of together to attest to something obvious - that you were wrong to send his image.
I've never asked Tukuler to delete Anglo's posts. I did ask for him to ban Anglo several months ago after he made something up about me, but you can work out that he didn't follow through with the request - Anglo also contacted him about me - don't know what was said.
Didn't you dare me to post our fb correspondence? Didn't you say you wanted me to?
If by your personal information you mean that extraordinary e-mail you sent him, yes I did repost it...after you called me a "lunatic"...
Bottom line is, you were wrong.
Anyway, why the intense dislike for Tukuler?"
Anson:03 June "Well, either you told him to selectively rip all of Anglo’s messages to shreds in the thread below or he did it for you. Don’t know what is sicker:
^What’s next, are you going to tell me that ravaging a thread like that, simply because he feels he can abuse whoever, whenever he wants to, is a matter of “moderation style”?
quote: that you were wrong to send his image.
Why? Let’s see you articulate *why* for once. We already know that your previous reasons for saying this have been debunked (I never disseminated his picture and I never did it out of revenge, which I can prove by the ample opportunities I gave him to back down, and by the PM I sent Mike). Now what? What is your next excuse to delegitimize the fact that I stopped an abusive tyrant who is completely out of control? You’re going to tell me Mike broke forum rules? I can debunk that as well. It was already agreed years ago by veteran posters that the ancient Egypt subforum would be governed by free speech and that the Mikes and Anglos would be allowed to post provided they don’t break any laws. What’s next? That Tukuler was right for going after Mike given Mike’s views? Tukuler has fiercely defended Mike’s albino theory against those who weren’t having it back in the day (which included me, BTW) in a thread in which he posted pseudo-science to advance Mike’s case that whites are albinos. He didn’t start attacking and banning Mike until Mike gradually started to include Africans in his rants. There goes another potential excuse to legitimize Tukuler’s pretext of why he went after Mike. Let's hear it. I just helped you out by eliminating the weak excuses.
quote: Didn't you dare me to post our fb correspondence? Didn't you say you wanted me to?
quote: yes I did repost it...after you called me a "lunatic"...
So when I do what you’ve done countless times, it’s principally wrong, no matter what. But when you do it, it’s not wrong per se? Is that what you’re telling me? Please tell me that’s not where you’re going with this."
My response: 03 June
quote: Well, either you told him to selectively rip all of Anglo’s messages to shreds in the thread below or he did it for you.
First I've heard of this. Maybe anglo had the same thing done to his e-mails as Mike. Don't care really, it's ultimately petty. Although it's good since anglo's sh1t would not be tolerated elsewhere, so no laments from me.
I didn't read the link - I'm bored enough as it is.
Don't think I want to get into a debate as to why it was wrong of you to send the image of one of your (private) forum members to someone they're at odds with. Is your self-righteousness so all-consuming that you can't see that?
I've never sent an image of you to someone you're at odds with. Did Tukuler explicitly dare you to do that?
And why do you have an intense dislike of Tukuler?"
Anson: 03 June "I never asked you to sympathize with Anglo, but your repeated indifference to Tukuler’s widespread abuses are duly noted.
quote: Don't think I want to get into a debate as to why it was wrong of you
I wouldn’t either. You have no leg to stand on; the only way you can make it seem wrong is by looking at it as an isolated act. That is precisely why you're reluctant now that the ball in your court; now you have to formulate a coherent sentence without the convenience of being able to fall back on "you're wrong just because".
quote: to send the image of one of your (private) forum members
Laughable attempt at sending me on a guilt trip. I just referenced all the times he posted personal information online. He posted stuff online directly from the FB group, including stuff from Brandon, whom he knew had nothing to do with this. Explain to me why FB is somehow a sacred, not to be violated red line when I do it.
quote: I've never sent an image of you to someone you're at odds with.
I really hope you’re not saying wrong when do it, in principle, but that it's again for you to do it with or without someone I dislike or after I dared you. Is that it?
quote: And why do you have an intense dislike of Tukuler?
It’s not about me disliking him. It’s about the demonstrable evidence of his abuses and sadistic tendencies (which were already posted, so your question seems redundant and obsolete), not my subjective feelings."
My response: 04 June
quote: I never asked you to sympathize with Anglo, but your repeated indifference to Tukuler’s widespread abuses are duly noted.
I'm actually indifferent to how the board is moderated, but if the likes of Anglo and Mike are banned, I'm not going to complain. The situation here though is that you're trying to get me to say something critical of Tukuler, which I sense you might use against him. On the whole, I think Tukuler does a good job, although I wish he'd taken action against Anglo and Mike much earlier. By the way, I don't know if there are many other boards where you could insult the moderator and not get banned -look at how you deleted Amun-Ra from your facebook group...
quote: I wouldn’t either. You have no leg to stand on; the only way you can make it seem wrong is by looking at it as an isolated act. That is precisely why you're reluctant now that the ball in your court; now you have to formulate a coherent sentence without the convenience of being able to fall back on "you're wrong just because".
This really isn't up for debate. You were wrong.
quote: Laughable attempt at sending me on a guilt trip. I just referenced all the times he posted personal information online. He posted stuff online directly from the FB group, including stuff from Brandon, whom he knew had nothing to do with this. Explain to me why FB is somehow a sacred, not to be violated red line when I do it.
Posting comments/views/opinions is one thing - releasing an image of someone, after they've trusted your administration, is something else.
It bespeaks that spiteful, self-righteous, calculating streak in you.
quote: I really hope you’re not saying wrong when do it, in principle, but that it's again for you to do it with or without someone I dislike or after I dared you. Is that it?
It's never right to send an image of someone to anyone else when it's not in the public domain. I was clearly commenting on your unconvincing equation of your actions with mine.
quote: It’s not about me disliking him. It’s about the demonstrable evidence of his abuses and sadistic tendencies (which were already posted, so your question seems redundant and obsolete), not my subjective feelings.
But it clearly is about your disliking him. It's visceral and I don't get why. You've already said that you wouldn't have done the same to Brandon, so it's everything to do with your subjective feelings.
How come you can openly dialogue with Anglo, overcoming your hostility towards him, a freak who holds a great deal of animus towards black people, but you can't do the same with Tukuler?
Has Tukuler really caused you greater offence than Anglo?"
Anson: 04 June "Look man, this is going nowhere. Most of what you say is simply not true. Even worse, it's demonstrably not true. Let's put it all into perspective:
1) Your talk about me taking revenge on Tukuler using what you write here. Look at how many times he attacked me and how many times I retaliated vs how many times he retaliated when I did something to him. His ratio is close to 1:1. What is my ratio, pray tell. What is my ratio for taking revenge on you when you did all that? What is your ratio for retaliating with private information when you feel cornered? Again, your ratio is pretty much 1:1. You are clearly projecting here. When you talk about suspecting me to take revenge on Tukuler with what you say here, you are simply talking about what you and Tukuler would have done. This is a page directly out of your own book of dirty tactics. You talked to Anglo and the first thing you did is post the conversation where he talks about his mental health on ES. Aside from whether it was right or wrong in that instant, that is YOUR MO, not mine. You and Tukuler have the most dirty posting styles out there. Just look at the exchange that was deleted two days ago. I remind you about your posting of Anglo's data to "put things in perspective" and the first thing you do is post private information to retaliate. You and Tukuler are everything you accuse me of (which explains why you see no wrong in what he does). Go on, keep forfeiting what little credibility you have left by only seeing addressing faults when it's convenient.
2) In everyday life they have a word for when a raging lunatic who enjoys asymmetric power and harassment, is stopped by a third party who empowers his victims with his own sadistic tactics. They tend to call that poetic justice. Give me one real life precedent in which the public had an unfavorable reaction to what I did in that context. Good luck.
3) What did I do to Amun? Amun was invited on the condition that he'd contribute. He was deleted for violating that rule, which you already know from the conversations we had. You're just making up sh!t. His defiant and provocative posts were never deleted.
4) Again, you're simply confused re: the posting of Tukuler's image. He never entrusted it to my "administration". The image is from his own isolated FB account. Tukuler had his image still up on FB when he posted Mike's personal information. You're free to have your beliefs about me being wrong (I'm not out to convince anyone that I was right), but don't make up sh!t. Not only are you confused, you're opinionated, uninformed and you clearly have an axe to grind. If there is something calculated about what I did, you'll have to specify, because I'm beginning to suspect you're seeing things.
quote: Has Tukuler really caused you greater offence than Anglo?
Both you and Tukuler have. Like I said, you are ignorant and you're ignorant about the baffling extent of your ignorance.
I never liked Tukuler, but I made him a mod in the FB group. I never deleted him for being a deadbeat bum and never posting there. When he was a mod in the FB group we clashed numerous times on ES, which I never let carry over to the FB group. How does that fit into your narrative of my treatment of him being visceral? I didn't retaliate when he posted my message. I didn't delete him from the FB group until I got tired of him coming on the FB group to leech and at the same time attacking it while here on ES. I can only recall him posting two papers, the last one included the subtle hint that his paper was not to be posted on ES. When he got back on to ES he started grandstanding and attacking the FB group over the same secrecy he asked us to apply to the paper he posted. Then suspicions started to pile up about him gossiping. So yeah, I then consulted with someone else and deleted him. I could care less about what you make of that.
Your objective to make my treatment of him seem visceral is just a figment of your uninformed and opinionated imagination. You refuse to look at facts, in fact, it's clear that you have no interest in facts. You know nothing about the politics or history of this board. Anglo did the same thing Mike did--most of what they did was permissible under ES rules. When it wasn't, their threads were removed. I don't have to like what either of them post or the beliefs they hold. I can't say the same about what you and Tukuler have done. Both of you have broken more laws than either Mike or Anglo did. If you want examples of visceral reactions, look at your own posting history when you're cornered with on topic arguments."
My response: 04 June "^ You're boring me now. All this petty message-board crap.
Bottom line is, you were bang out of order releasing his image. So bloody wrong.
Thing is, you bullsh1t. Releasing your FB comments proved that spectacularly. Cornered with on topic arguments? Like when you argued that anyone who criticised XXXX XXXXs conclusion on the race of the Egyptians was in the wrong? When your own FB comments suggested otherwise?
Before you say you had a change of mind on XXXX XXXX, I'll tell you I'm not convinced. You now say: Kemp accepted the Egyptians were African, but that that wasn't enough for me, and that I was at fault for insisting on the term 'black'. I experimented with the other approach. He failed. Given his reaction to race neutral descriptions and depictions of ancient Egyptians, it's odd you had a sudden change of mind. His reaction to Keita's "Somali-like" description; his attempt at deflecting ancient Egyptians as "indigenous Africans", whilst using the term "indigenous" in reference to the Sudanese (even Lioness saw this as problematic); his reaction to facial reconstructions I sent him; his comments on the Liverpool Museum poster; his bringing in the Amarna anthropological team to try to undermine the data from the X-Ray Atlas;the "bullshit concession" - as you termed it - over the Rosung quote I sent him on Nubian/Upper Egyptian cranio-facial homogeneity. If he was at ease with the idea of the Egyptians as Africans, then how strange that he should have had difficulties with any of the above? Let's not forget the facial reconstructions he sent me, which you questioned. Maybe you've forgotten his ludicrous suggestion that ancient Egyptian preference for light-skinned women, as informed by tomb murals, kept the overall population light?
You were privy to his e-mail responses right up near the end of our FB private correspondence, and still, even at that late stage, referred to him as being one in a long line of "manipulators" and having wormed away.
So I don't know if I can take your change of mind at face value. There seems to be something else at work. Not quite sure what, but I sense it stems from a certain friction that arose towards the end of our communication, and my rebuffing your advice on how to continue with the Kemp correspondence. You suggested that I drop the term 'black' in favour of non-racial terms (as I've said above, he wasn't accepting of those either) and I sensed that your ego didn't like it, setting the scene for whatever happened on the FB forum. Oh yeah, thanks to Beyoku for needlessly escalating a discussion on the ambiguities of blackness into a stupid argument. I went to bed on a civil discussion and next day, when I log in again, he's left a comment suggesting that I'd run away!I went into him, and I could tell that you didn't like it - you'd taken a back seat, but intervened when his argument collapsed, leaving you and I in open confrontation. I have a feeling that this is where this sudden endorsement of XXXX comes from. Not out of principle, but out of opposition.
So when you openly stated on the ES forum that (my)questioning XXXX's conclusion on the race of the Egyptians was ill-founded, I referenced your previous comments - you then dared me to post them, saying that you wanted me to...a bluff was called. Now you're pissed off, trying to force an equation between that and your releasing Tukuler's picture.
But you're right, this discussion is going nowhere."
Anson: 04 June
"You're making yourself out to be a complete joke. You specifically asked for it but when it turns out to not be what you wanted to hear, you turn a blind eye and say it bores you. You sound like a diva. No man I know asks a question, gets an answer and then spontaneously breaks up conversation by saying "I'm bored now". You have no idea how infantile you come across, do you?
Like I said, I have no problem admitting I was wrong if it can be established aside from you wanting to have your way, like some sort of spoiled prima donna. Telling me I'm wrong and then trying to back down when I ask why is what children do. Go ask adults in your environment whether that's a reasonable, mature thing to say.
Whether I was wrong or not for releasing Tukuler's image, I think there are a couple of things we can agree on:
1) What you did when you released Anglo's PM concerning his mental health and apology was 10 million times worse. I predict you will say that you have no sympathy for Anglo, but that reaction precisely what makes you such a morally bankrupt person; you genuinely think you get to decide when posting private information is morally objectionable or not.
2) Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better, see point 1 and 3. Literally everything from being vindictive, to being "self-righteous", to "being dead wrong", to acting from "visceral" place. Think about what you've said here. Not that I'm planning to leak what you say here, but the fact that you think I would need your condemnation of Tukuler's behavior to do some damage with your emails shows how warped your mind really is. Do you think your repeated condoning and benefiting from self-serving censorship and abuse of power reflects gracefully on you? That your own admission of knowingly cozying up to abusive moderators to get someone banned behind the scenes by bypassing forum rules is a good look?
3) Anglo and Mike both broke fewer forum rules and laws than you did. You're systematically breaking them. Hurts, doesn't it? Knowing that when you follow this train of thought and draw a conclusion from the forum rules, you're not what you make yourself out to be and deserve to be banned more than Mike and Anglo do.
4) When you weren't nervously ducking the question to articulate your argument, the only reason you could muster up for why it was wrong to post his image was that the source of the image was inappropriate. This still doesn't touch on why the act of posting it was wrong. What a joke.
My response: 05 June
"Gee, amongst your histrionic sh1t, it's unsurprising you made no reference to your unconvincing endorsement of XXXX XXXX...
When I saw that you'd messaged me several days ago, my first instinct was to tell you to fuc.k off since I'd previously come to the conclusion that you're a time-waster. But then I thought, no, let's see what he has to say...nothing has changed. You're still a lying, self-righteous little pric.k. Some inconsequential guy on the internet who thinks he's fuc.king infallible. Grow up.
quote: You're making yourself out to be a complete joke. You specifically asked for it but when it turns out to not be what you wanted to hear, you turn a blind eye and say it bores you. You sound like a diva. No man I know asks a question, gets an answer and then spontaneously breaks up conversation by saying "I'm bored now". You have no idea how infantile you come across, do you?"
Do you really think most men would adopt your unprincipled sh1tty positions? Do you think most men would even bother reading and responding to your crazed sh1t? Beyond telling you to fu.ck off? Seriously?
quote: "Like I said, I have no problem admitting I was wrong if it can be established aside from you wanting to have your way, like some sort of spoiled prima donna. Telling me I'm wrong and then trying to back down when I ask why is what children do. Go ask adults in your environment whether that's a reasonable, mature thing to say."
Oh, fu.cking hell. "Like I said..." blah, blah, fuc.king blah. You were in the wrong. Deal with it. Go speak to someone in an "adult environment" and ask them whether what you did was acceptable. Go on, show them the messages you've sent me this week. Show them that freaky message you sent Tukuler. Show them examples of your interaction with The Explorer, Akachi, Tukuler, and Amun-Ra. See what they say. You won't because you know you'd look like a fu.cking weirdo.
quote: "1) What you did when you released Anglo's PM concerning his mental health and apology was 10 million times worse. I predict you will say that you have no sympathy for Anglo, but that reaction precisely what makes you such a morally bankrupt person; you genuinely think you get to decide when posting private information is morally objectionable or not."
The hyperbole and exaggeration:"10 million times worse". The overwrought fuc.king drama. What are you fu.cking 9 years old or something? Your concern for Smith comes across as bullsh1t - especially since you threatened to make a webpage on him and followed him around the internet, at a time when I didn't give a sh1t. Yet now you criticise me. Hypocritical bullshit. Regardless, I'm unmoved. It's also self-serving and delusional to draw an equation between Tukuler and Oliver Smith. You're so full of sh1t, it's why I'm not really engaging with you.
quote: "2) Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better, see point 1 and 3. Literally everything from being vindictive, to being "self-righteous", to "being dead wrong", to acting from "visceral" place. Think about what you've said here. Not that I'm planning to leak what you say here, but the fact that you think I would need your condemnation of Tukuler's behavior to do some damage with your emails shows how warped your mind really is. Do you think your repeated condoning and benefiting from self-serving censorship and abuse of power reflects gracefully on you? That your own admission of knowingly cozying up to abusive moderators to get someone banned behind the scenes by bypassing forum rules is a good look?
Beyond parody. "Everything you've criticized me for over the past couple of PMs fits you 1000 times better.." Petty-minded bullsh1tter. Get a fuc.king life. How the hell do I "benefit" from moderation? What does this even mean? How does "cozying up to abusive moderators" give any "benefit" to anyone?
quote: "3) Anglo and Mike both broke fewer forum rules and laws than you did. You're systematically breaking them. Hurts, doesn't it? Knowing that when you follow this train of thought and draw a conclusion from the forum rules, you're not what you make yourself out to be and deserve to be banned more than Mike and Anglo do."
Oh, I'm so hurt! Rules? WTF are you talking about? Get a sense of perspective. This must be what happens when you devote your life to posting on message boards. Grow the fu.ck up. I really wouldn't care if I got banned from Egyptsearch. I can't believe you attribute it so much significance.
quote: 4) When you weren't nervously ducking the question to articulate your argument, the only reason you could muster up for why it was wrong to post his image was that the source of the image was inappropriate. This still doesn't touch on why the act of posting it was wrong. What a joke. "
There's no argument to be had. You were wrong to post Tukuler's image, which you did out of malice and a petty grudge. Deal with it. I'm not going to chase the logic of a parochial, deranged, bullsh1tter. Most adults wouldn't. You're compelled by some strange psychological tic to continually be seen to be right - no matter how fu.cking ludicrous you end up appearing. That e-mail you sent Tukuler showed just what kind of a jumped-up, ego-driven, sociopathic t1t you are. What ails you, man? Maybe it's the result of spending half your sorry fuc.king message board-addicted life playing at Shomarka Keita.
Sh1t,I can't believe that I'm even freakin' engaging with you.
Let me tell you something. If you send me any further messages, just one more fuc.king example of your pathetic sh1t, I will post your name on the main ES forum. Let's take this out into the open where people can see who we are. Lot's of fun then to be had collating historic examples of your sh1tty posts and linking them to you, no?
Now.
Fuc.k off."
Anson: 06 June "That last email got your panties up in a bunch, didn't it, prima donna? Did it hit a sensitive nerve? Tell me, who is more of a diva in your household, your wife, your daughters or you?
From your visceral reactions and emotional outbursts, it looks like you never had a male figure in your life.
You really need a hug, don't you, Carla Jenner?"
------------------------------------------ My response: 06 June "It's done."
A few months ago this character was back here trying to dictate to his minions what they should or shouldn't write, like a styled 'bwana' of sorts and airing a dog's breakfast of petty squabbling and dirty laundry from the Facebook 'empire.' Now he is back again, adding nothing to the forum of you people, but trying to interfere yet again. He does not control anything here, and does not contribute anything here. Better such trivial pettifoggers be banished back to their 'empire' where they can squabble to their heart's content.
Posts: 27 | From: Birmingham's Black Country | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As well as ‘Swenet’ and ‘Kalonji’ here on Egyptsearch, his ‘Egyptsearch 2.0’ blog, and ‘Willy West’ on Facebook, Sidney Anson, a man in his late 20's or 30's of Surinamese descent (a photo shows he has dreadlocks) in Amsterdam, also has/had an online presence as ‘Willy Emblem’.
In April 2013, Sidney Anson/Willy Emblem approached the ‘Higherlevel’ forum, a Dutch-language site where he sought feedback from experienced entrepreneurs on a business idea. Having put themselves forward for potential criticism, most adults would anticipate frank and sometimes uncomfortable comments and take the freely given advice…
Not Sidney Anson.
If you’d ever wondered about Sidney Anson’s bizarre online behaviour (that is, unpredictable, defensive, offensive, petty, needy, ego-driven, inconsistent) then you are not alone. In the Higherlevel thread, which ran from 5th to 9th April 2013, Anson manages to piss off most of the forum members who participated in the discussion he initiated—I’d never imagined Google Translate could be so compelling.
I'll present the Dutch text followed by the English translation.
When asking for feedback in his OP, Sidney Anson includes the following caveat:
quote: Note: ikvraagabsoluutnietommeningenbetreffende of men het aannemelijkvind of ditsysteemzalwerken, alhoewel je natuurlijkvrij ben om je verwachtingenteuiten. Waarikvoornamelijkgeïnteresseerd in ben, is:
1) watjullieeersteindruk is, zodatikkanweten hoe mensenzullengaanreageren. Ditstaat me toe om hieropteanticiperen, eneventueletwijfelsenanderevormen van weerstand pro-actiefwegtenemen in mijngesprekken met prospects
Which, according to Google Translate, means:
quote:
“Note : I absolutely do not ask for opinions on whether they think it is plausible that this system will work, though of course you are free to express your expectations. What I am mainly interested in is: 1 ) what your first impression is , that I may know how people will react . This allows me to anticipate this , and any doubts and other forms of resistance to take a pro-active way in my conversations with prospects”
As forum members-- experienced businessmen and women - - expressed their opinions, Anson’s characteristic defensiveness ensured that the discussion went downhill. He complained of “personal attacks”, “ad hominem” statements, ”boundless cronyism” and was unhappy that:
quote: “neutraliteit, beschaafdheidenonpartijdigheid is duidelijknietietsdatbezoekers van de meesteforumledenhierhoeventeverwachten.”
quote: “neutrality, civility and impartiality is clearly not something that visitors most forum members have to expect here.”
Comments on his reactions from some of the Higher Level posters who participated in the discussion as follows:
‘Marcel D’:8 april 201316:12
quote: Beste Willy,
Ikhebwerkelijk met stijgendeverbazingdit topic gevolgd. Startte het aanvankelijk nog alseen topic waarinikoprechtgeïnteresseerd was in je product kaniknietontkennendat je eenbehoorlijkeirritatieopwekt. Ikbegrijp je aanvallendehoudingnaar de overigeledennietgoed, er is natuurlijkniksmis met eengoedediscussie maar ditbegintzolangzamerhandongeloofwaardigteworden. Werkelijkiedereen die in jouogen "kritiek" uitprobeer je aftebluffen met tegenargumenten. Indienjij je belaagdvoelt mag je jezekerverdedigen, maar ditnogal over de top..
Bedenk je goeddatditeenondernemersforum is endatiedereenelkaarhierprobeerttehelpen, hierzitten hele ervarenmensenenook starters. Doe hier je voordeelmee want op dit moment kanik me nietaan de indrukonttrekkendat je jeniet heel erg populairaan het maken bent... eninderdaadhigherlevelwordt heel goedgeïndexeerd door google. Je hoefthierverdergeenreactie op tegeven, doe ermeewat je wil..maarikdenkdatals je alleszelfbeterweet het ookgeenzinheeft in dit topic verdertespuien.
Ondanksdatditmisschieneenbeetje off topic is wildeikdittochgraagaan je kwijt
quote: “Dear Willy I really have with increasing amazement followed this topic. It started initially as a topic in which I was genuinely interested in your product, I can not deny that you generate a considerable irritation. I understand your offensive attitude towards the other members not good, there is of course nothing wrong with a good debate but this is starting to be gradually implausible. Literally everyone in your eyes "critical" in trying to bluff with counterarguments. If you feel you are attacked you can certainly defend you, but rather over the top ..
Think you are good that this is a business forum and that everyone here is trying to help each other, here are all experienced people and starters. Take this to your advantage because at the moment I can not help feeling that you are not very popular are creating ... and indeed higher level is very well indexed by google. You do this no further reaction to give up, do what you want ..buti think if you all yourself better know it makes no sense to continue in this topic indulged.
Although this might be a bit off topic is, I wanted it to still like you lost
Sincerely, Marcel”
After Anson took issue with the perceived bias of the moderator,Joost Retveld, Retveld replied: 8 april 2013, 00:47
quote: Alsikals moderator reageer dan zetikdateraltijdbij. Anders is het gewoon little old me En sorry, maar ikstel je (als HL lid) een heel simpelevraag: "Watkom je hierdoen?" Het is een open vraagenik had gehooptdat je konverklarenwaarom je jevraag op HL geplaatsthebt. Watwil je van onswetenenwatwil je hiermee bereiken?
“If I react as a moderator than I put that always there. Otherwise it's just little old mAnd sorry, but I suggest you (as a member HL) is a very simple question: "What are you doing here?" It is an open question and I was hoping you could explain why you posted your question at HL. What do you know about us and what do you achieve?”
‘Patrick Keizer’:8 april 201317:10
quote:
Laster Willy?Wiebelastertjou?Ikzievijfpagina'sargumentatieenvijfpagina's (defensieve, geïrriteerdeensomtijdsagressieve) reacties van jou op datgenewat men naarvorenbrengt. Je had waarschijnlijkverwachtdat men jouwsysteemklakkelooszougaanbewieroken. Maar nee, in plaatsdaarvanplaatste men enkele, somtijdshardekritischenoten.Datkangebeurenals je om eenmeningvraagt.
.https://www.higherlevel.nl/forum/index.php?
Google Translate:
quote: “Slander Willy? Whoever defames you? I see five pages of argument and five pages ( defensive , irritated and sometimes aggressive ) responses from you on what is brought forward. You had probably expected that your system would praise them indiscriminately . But no, instead they placed a few , sometimes harsh critical notes. That can happen if you ask for an opinion”
‘Edo Van Santen’:8 april 2013, 18:39
quote:
ik hoop datditdraadje nog eentijdjedoorloopt, ikamuseer me kostelijk.
Please, blijfreagerenallemaal, dit is zeervermakelijken leerzaamenmoeten we in de "over HL" plakken
quote: “I hope this thread continues for a while, I enjoying myself immensely. Please , keep all respond , it is very entertaining and informative , and we have to stick in the " on HL " .”
Nosky9 april 2013, 01:17
quote: Elke –goedbedoelde- kritischeblik op jouw post (waar je overigenszelfomvraagt: “watjullieeersteindruk is”) zie je alseenaanval om ervervolgens op kinderachtigewijzemee om tegaan. Wees de mensendankbaardatzetijd in je investeren, in plaats je alsCalimero op testellen. Het resultaat is dat je nu allemensentegen je in het harnaswerkt. Dag potentiëledoelgroep.
Verder, alsikzo door je reactiesheen lees, lijkt het me raadzaamals je jeeensgaatverdiepen in marketing engerelateerdezaken. Want je slaat op sommigepunten de plank volledigmis. Het voorbeeld van John Bouwmans, die het over “gatenverkopen” heeft in plaats van “boormachinesveropen” interpreteer je op totaal de verkeerdemanier. Zelfsnameerderetoelichtingengeef je ergeenblijk van tebegrijpenwaterwordtbedoeld. Alsje”gaten” verkoopt, verkoop je geendienst.Je verkooptgaten.De oplossingdus, endusniet het middel (boormachines).Het is de insteekwaarmee je eenmarktbenaderd. Ookals het gaat om jouwdefinitie van eenondernemingslaat het echttotaalnergens op. En ookdaarwil je nietbegrijpenwaterfout is aan je denkwijze. En je uitlegdaarbij is niettevolgen.
Je taalgebruikdoet me denkenaan die Enait, die advocaat die weleens op TV is geweestenbeterbekendstaatals de ´handenschudweigeraar´. Deze man doettijdens het sprekenzoontzettendzijn best omzoveelmogelijkmoeilijkewoorden in zijnzinnenteplakken, dathijnaarverloop van tijderzelfhelemaal in verstriktraaktenhetgeenwathijzegtnergensmeer op slaat. Jijhebtook de neigingom ´dure´ woordentegebruikenaan de enekant, maar aan de anderekantkloppentetekstengrammaticaalvoorgeen meter. Bedenkwederomdat je hier op eenondernemersforum zit.Hiervind je nuchtere, ´down to earth´ mensen die helemaalnietzittentewachten fancy taalgebruik. Ken je mensen, ken je markt.
quote: “Each -well bedoelde- critical look at your post (which can actually asks himself: "What is your first impression") you see as an attack and then there childish way to handle it. Be thankful to the people that they invest time in you, rather than you as Calimero set. The result is that now all people from working in the harness. Day potential audience.
Furthermore, if I read through your responses, it seems advisable if you're ever going to delve into marketing and related issues. Because you hit on some points completely wrong. The example of John Building Mans That Sell "holes" talking about "veropen drills" rather than interpret on totally the wrong way. Even after several disclosures give you no sign of understanding what is meant. If you have "holes" sell, sell your duty. You sell holes. The solution, then, and not the means (drills). It is the approach with which you approached the market. Even if it is your definition of a company beats the real total sense. And there you do not understand what is wrong with your thinking. And your explanation here is not to follow.
Your language reminds me of the Enait, who is a lawyer who has ever been on TV and is better known as the'handenschudweigeraar' [handshake refuser]. This man does when speaking so very, very best to stick as many difficult words in his sentences, he for some time himself gets all tangled up and what he says nothing more sense. You also have the tendency to use'dure' words on one side, but on the other hand knocking grammatical texts for no meter. Remember again that you are sitting here at a business forum. Here you will find sober,'down earth' to people who are not waiting fancy language. Know your people, know your market.”
Fortunately, Anson doesn’t resort to his characteristic extreme petulance to save face, and exits the discussion with:
quote: Ik ben klaarhier. Als je in wilgaan op paradocxzijnsuggestie, shoot me a PM.
posted
I’ve had the chance to read through Anson’s 24-page promo material for his business/business idea. What I don’t understand is why, on the last page, under the question Who Am I? , and a photo of himself, Anson says to the reader/potential customer:
“My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXXXXXXXXXXX.......”
Of course, ‘Willy Emblem’ is NOT his real name, so not entirely sure why he’d give one that's so completely different.
Maybe in this thread he could post the page referred to.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX, and the developer of the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX system. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at Willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com . or, if you prefer, by contacting me on my website: www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
Willy Emblem”
Again, his name isn’t Willy Emblem. An alternative business e-mail address, which he once used in correspondence with me, contained his real name.
Despite the use of a different name in his promotional material, and his ill-fated debut on the Higherlevel forum (April 2013)(posted above) Anson told me in Facebook correspondence that he was seeking to hire a telemarketer, presumably to promote and sell his product. Anson still has access to my correspondence with him, so can readily post confirmation in this thread.
I’m taking a casual look into the ethics and legalities of attempting to trade/actually trading under a different name.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does LinkedIn have to say about using your real name?
quote: "LinkedIn is built on relationships with people you know and trust. That's why it's important to represent yourself truthfully. There are various places on your profile where it's essential that you represent yourself honestly, including:
Your name field
While we expect you to use your real name, you can add a former name, nickname, or maiden name and professional certifications.
Learn how to make your profile name more private by displaying your first name and only the first letter of your last name.
Information not allowed in name fields:
Pseudonyms Business names Associations Groups Your email address Your phone number Other characters that don't reflect your real name"
Just to repeat that:
quote: it's important to represent yourself truthfully. There are various places on your profile where it's essential that you represent yourself honestly, including:
Your name field
Information not allowed in name fields... Pseudonyms.
Although, of course, Sidney Anson is not a writer working under a nome de plume, so not sure Willy Emblem can even be regarded as a pseudonym. This is how, elsewhere on Egyptsearch, he tried to legitimize his use of a different name in his business dealings (by referencing the practice among celebrities).
Tsk tsk, Mr Anson.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: What does linkedin have to say about using your real name?
Lol. WTF? "Oh nooo, he's going to report me to linkedin". Ole feminine, beauty salon working ass shemale. Lol. No wonder your posts sound so gossipy and why you're ratting your friends out behind the scenes when you think no one is looking.
quote: Lol. WTF? "Oh nooo, he's going to report me to linkedin".
Thing is, when you're in business, how utterly shameless do you have to be to (seemingly) not care that you've been caught using a "fake name", as the contact at LinkedIn describes it. If Sidney Anson acts like this in business, then it's unsurprising that he lacks integrity and consistency elsewhere.
Oh,and if you're tempted to take down your LinkedIn page, I've already taken a screen shot.
quote: he tried to have my threads on his academic misadventures deleted, but I simply reposted them:
Another one of Sidney Anson's delirious lies. I've made no requests whatsoever to have any threads about me deleted in this forum. None.
As for "academic misadventures", and as I've said before, a number of mainstream scholars have backed me, and are encouraging me to publish.I know you hate to hear that, and have previously tried to dismiss them as "politically correct", but your prickish reaction only makes you look even more beleaguered.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: What's LinkedIn's policy with regards to members who use a different name to their real one?
I know of someone on LinkedIn who uses a name that's completely different (both first and surname).
LinkedIn replied this morning with:
quote: Thanks for contacting us.
Can you please provide me with the Profile URL of the person who is using a fake name?
Looking forward to your response!
Sincerely, XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You see that Sid, "fake name".
Seems you've been using a fake name in business.
Again, I've already taken a screenshot, so even if your LinkedIn profile is deleted, I have a record of it.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holy sh!t. Miss Beauty Salon really thinks she's onto something with her gossipy posts. Now she's taking action against an old, completely unused and abandoned Linkedin account and posting the replies here, like a the certified gossip queen she is.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that Carlos Oliver Coke keeps persecuting academics even when he's been show to be wrong. I think it's partly an intelligence thing. Given how often Carlos Oliver Coke finds himself in these situations where he's COMPLETELY WRONG, and then acts like he's COMPLETELY RIGHT, I'm really starting to think Carlos Oliver Coke has a low IQ, in addition to other mental retardation symptoms. Lol! I really shouldn't laugh, though. This is serious. Carlos Oliver Coke needs mental help, ASAP.
quote:"Can one start and operate a business using a pseudonym?"
A business pseudonym is referred to as a "Doing Business As (DBA)" or a Tradename, and they are perfectly legal and very common. Some jurisdictions allow you to registered DBAs and tradenames, but not all.
A personal pseudonym used for business purposes is called a professional alias, a pen name (authors, journalists), or a stage name (actors, musicians). It's also perfectly legal. Most people use such names to become famous under (they pick a name that has better marketing value than their own), and also for privacy purposes (given their intent to become famous).
As a sole proprietor form of business, you could actually mix the too and register your pseudonym as a DBA.
There is no legal restriction upon operating a business using a pseudonym, however legal documents and legal relationships will bear your legal name.
P.S. Aside from intentional pseudonyms, its very common for people to use a name that differs from their legal name: nicknames, middle names used as first names, married names without legal change, maiden names despite legal change, religious names (e.g. Muslims) without legal change, etc."
posted
^...strange then, given your confidence, that in the space of 24 hours your Willy Emblem LinkedIn photo mysteriously disappears... it's still available though in google images--(the dread-locked male of African descent taking a selfie in the snow).
quote: This is exactly what I mean when I say that Carlos Oliver Coke keeps persecuting academics even when he's been show to be wrong.
Persecuting academics? More of your tabloid sensationalism. I contacted academics who've written on the Egyptian race issue and questioned their thinking (you yourself found their conclusions problematic). How is this persecution, or slander? See the translated extracts from the Higherlevel thread for a sense of Sidney Anson's histrionics and childish idiocy.
And again, the supportive mainstream academics who've seen the correspondence with the academics I've "persecuted" encourage publishing...as did you before we fell out.
quote:keeps persecuting academics even when he's been show to be wrong
So in my argument that most of the indigenous ancient Egyptians would today be regarded as black/black African, where have I been proven wrong?
What a bullshitter.And you're in business...
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad the people here have already seen me point out Carlos Oliver Coke's calculated tampering with quotes from academics to cast them in a bad light. The whole "academics are supporting me" and "I did nothing wrong" routines are way past having even a whiff of credibility. At this point, after his bizarre and completely botched slander campaign to vilify my use of a professional alias, any private email Carlos Oliver Coke posts or anything he says should be looked at with a boulder of salt.
Not too long ago, when the Carlos Oliver Coke psycho creep was going around slandering several academics on this forum, his slanderous content was deleted by his own friend because it was recognized that he had stooped to a new low this forum hadn't yet seen. Only back stabbing Carlos Oliver Coke thinks publicizing private emails from academics without permission to cast them in a negative light, isn't repulsive and slanderous. According to the Carlos Oliver Coke creep, making lists with demands to get others to what he wants (under the threat of posting their personal information) isn't blackmail either.
The exact same 'slander first, ask questions later and never admit you're wrong' campaign we've seen Carlos Oliver Coke apply to academics, he has applied to me ever since I privately and publicly distanced myself from his practices and repeatedly expressed disillusionment with what he was doing (this was in 2013).
Aside from his usual slander tactic of repeatedly spamming already debunked claims, yesterday we've also seen Carlos Oliver Coke use one of the trademark slander tactics he's using against academics, against me. See the hilarious part where he contacted Linkedin and posted their confused response after he tricked them with suggestive language. This is Carlos Oliver Coke's trademark appeal to authority fallacy he uses to drum up fake "support", which he then reposts again and again in his conversations to add fake legitimacy and support to his claims. Don't be surprised if you see the Carlos Oliver Coke creep pop up somewhere tomorrow, repeating the same already debunked slander about stage names.
Note that, had the Carlos Oliver Coke creep approached linkedin, saying I used a stage name or professional alias, he would have gotten a completely different response. A response that he would have deemed unfit to post here for his slandering purposes. Hence, why he deliberately maxed out the ambiguity of his complaint to make sure they weren't going to tell him to piss off with his petty crap. Of course, there are MANY entrepreneurs with professional aliases active on Linkedin (e.g. Anthony Robbins, Iyanla Vanzant, etc), so even if they were to complain, it would just amount to hypocrisy.
Carlos Oliver Coke is such an incompetent screw up. I'll make sure ALL his false and slanderous comments are going to stay prominently visible on the internet. I'm archiving everything. Eventually, I might consider legal steps as well. Between his libel, blackmail and his disclosure of my and others' names, I have more than enough examples of his unlawful behavior.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: Good news, the LinkedIn photo still shows when I try another computer, so no need to scan through google images.
Tell me this doesn't sound like Carlos Oliver Coke is an emasculated, middle-aged creep with no life. Which grown man you know who is in his fifties, talks like this? Why do I get the impression that Carlos Oliver Coke is engaging in this pedo-ish behavior, i.e. stalking and saving profile images from social media, all the time? Mind you, this is the same Carlos Oliver Coke creep who, when considering himself safe behind the scenes, confessed his dubious attempt to duplicate a hotmail account that belonged to another forum member.
quote:strange then, given your confidence, that in the space of 24 hours your Willy Emblem LinkedIn photo mysteriously disappears
More evidence that this Carlos Oliver Coke creep lives in some sort of teletubby twilight zone, together with the figments he's seeing. I haven't logged into that account since 2013 and never really used it. How sick can you possibly be to keep running your mouth about and threaten to report an abandoned Linkedin account that has never really consisted of anything more than a profile picture and a name. WTF?
quote:How is this persecution, or slander?
Tell the forum why you received a warning for disparaging academics and posting their emails without permission and why you had your slanderous content deleted. Lying piece of sh!t.
quote:Just rereading the LinkedIn rules, and yes, it specifically states that Pseudonyms are NOT allowed in the name fields.
posted
Carlos Oliver Coke, can you confess that your slander campaign against me for "unethically" using a professional alias, failed horribly and is just another example of mental instability in your long line of embarrassing blunders?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet. it's not worth spending that much time on. In some cases negative publicity is better than no publicity and time is money
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're absolutely right. It's an unproductive way to spend my time.
So how do you suggest he should be dealt with? And just out of curiosity, what would you have done if someone stabbed you and other FB members in the back by posting their names and the other foul stuff Carlos Oliver Coke did?
Not too long ago Carlos Oliver Coke was stalking you around the forum and would have done the same to you if he had your personal information, so give a serious answer instead replying facetiously.
posted
I beg to differ. I could get really creative with all his behind the scenes confessions, lies, slander and blackmail if that's what I wanted.
But, so how do you think Carlos Oliver Coke should be dealt with? And what would YOU have done if he had posted your personal information in the half a dozen threads that haven't been deleted yet (I'm pretty sure there were more than these remaining six). Still waiting for your answers..
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You already did all you can do. You can't stop everything he might do.
Read the whole of this thread before trying to cast me as some sort of villain--
----------------------------------
Background:
-Sidney Anson refers to the content of the ancient Egypt section of this site depraved
-The moderator, Ausar/Tukuler tries to deter Mike111 from posting his offensive, racist anti-white content, by releasing his real name
-Sidney Anson/Swenet, in an apparent attempt to undermine him in is role as moderator (why?), sends an image of Ausar/Tukuler from Facebook to Mike111
-It becomes public knowledge that Ausar/Tukulers Facebook image has been sent to Mike111
-After a characteristically defensive post aimed at Clyde Winters, who'd publicly identified Anson as the source of the leak, Anson admits that he did send it
-When I query why Anson/Swenet has done this, given that he too apparently found the content in the ancient Egyptian section offensive, he gets nasty
-I call him out for his bullshit hypocrisy, referencing his now harsh aversion to my correspondence with academics, spotlighting that before we fell out, he'd been supportive...
-Tukuler/Ausar/ the moderator deletes thread, since it contravened forum rules
-Sidney Anson then PM's me, in an attempt to have me criticise the moderator (see upthread)
-When I don't, he gets pissy
-I get tired of his bullshit and tell him in no uncertain terms to fcuk off and that if he sent me any more shitty messages I'd release his name onto the forum
-Anson sends message referencing my family; given how supposedly protective he is of his name, ask yourself why he continued messaging me...
-I release his name
-he sends me some bullshit message saying he has my IP,place of work and address details
-In this thread,above, he and the moderator Tukuler/Ausar clash
-Anson disappears from the forum for three months
-On his return, Anson tries to smear me, stoking a thread begun by someone who 'hacked'(?) into a previous account of mine on this site and, unbeknownst to me at the time, impersonated me in contact with other posters.Why? Apparently because, with behind the scenes help from half a dozen or so forum members, I identified/named/outed a virulent, far-right, anti-black racist ...whom the moderator at the time did little about despite complaints...the same moderator who lied for the best part of a decade about being Upper Egyptian, before admitting to being white...the racist I named later sent me an e-mail apologising for his online racism
-I push back against Anson's open attempt to troll and misrepresent me, and call him out for his hypocritical, lying bullsh1t
-After interest in the thread ends, Anson then starts another thread about me
-Again I push back, posting information I've found on him online. BOTH his thread and mine get deleted--but he insists I was the source of the deletion, citing it as an attempt to hide supposedly damning information about me
-After the posts are deleted, Anson reposts screenshots that he'd taken of his thread!
-I continue posting information I've found in him
-------------------------------------------
So Lioness, spare me your bullsh1t attempt to mischaracterise here.
Lioness is the same woman/entity who created a thread asking why the hands and feet of black people are a different colour to the rest of their skin; and made a post daring the men on this site to say whether or not they'd been circumcised.
Fcuk off Lioness.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
An unexpected e-mail that Lioness sent me about the online activities of the racist I named. Keep it mind that after I named him, I had no interest whatsoever in policing his online activities elsewhere...just as long as he wasn't posting here, where I'd see it. Anyway, here's the rambling bullshit that Lioness sent me...and no, I didn't reply to her petty nonsense--
4/5/2015:
PM title: Can you explain this?
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers/Mikemiev: posted 07 February, 2013 04:30 PM
Forensic anthropologists, osteologists and paleo-anthropologists who use craniometry still exist and their research is valid.
You're just setting up a well known fallacy to try and portray physical racial anthropology as "obsolete", when it isn't, and never will be.
.
. quote: cassitertides as Metapedia editor "Atlantid" December 2013
The faheem account was hacked at Egyptsearch. I've left this site and all others, but there seem to be a whole crowd of people elsewhere now reporting our behavior and stirring things up. I have no intention or involvement in this and am trying to move on....
renounced my views on race and left to better my mental health.
quote: Originally posted by Dead:
There's little wrong with that old quote of mine.....
7phoenician7 1 year ago in reply to S Lee "Cranimetry (and anthropometry in general) reveals nothing "
LOL. Forensic anthropologists, osteologists and paleo-anthropologists use craniometry and their research is valid. You're setting up a well known fallacy to try and portray physical racial anthropology as "obsolete", when it isn't, and never will be. Of course there was gene flow into Nubia, Egypt colonized the Nubians for 1,000 years.
--youtube Bust of Queen Nefertiti (No Special Effects Needed) by MyMindToMeAKingdomIs
quote:
7phoenician7 1 year ago in reply to AnnioFire
"Caucasian and Negroid are psuedo scientific "
LOL! According to WHO>? I bet if science came out and stated that Egypt was Negroid, you would be fully accepting of it. Forensic anthropologists, osteologists and paleo-anthropologists who use craniometry still exist and their research is valid. You're setting up a fallacy to try and portray physical racial anthropology as "obsolete", when it isn't, and never will be.
---youtube Volney Recanted His "Black" Egypt Position by 7phoenician7 • 1,302 views Afrocentrism is a one-dimensional thought protocol and fails to conform to any modern logic. It is a distorted ideology supported by adherents of racist black supremacists; a faction whose...
Further investigation required, lioness productions
What I've shown here is the same remark made by DEAD 2013 as Faheemdunkers was made by 7phoenician7 in two different youtube comments a year ago.
This means either 7phoenician7 plagerized the remark from Faheemdunkers aka DEAD
or
Faheemdunkers = 7phoenician7
I recall Phoenician7 briefly appearing as a member on Egyptsearch many months ago and making a few comments, I would say within a year and a half ago. I have lost track of them, he probably since changed his member name
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Tell the forum why you received a warning for disparaging academics and posting their emails without permission and why you had your slanderous content deleted. Lying piece of sh!t.
quote: Just rereading the LinkedIn rules, and yes, it specifically states that Pseudonyms are NOT allowed in the name fields. Snitch.
Hang on a second. A former moderator here posted an e-mail from Susan Anton on the Tutankhamun reconstruction, and it got stickied. It was not an issue. Others have posted e-mails from academics on this forum, and again, no issue.
I also remember you posting here an e-mail from an academic that I'd forwarded to you. The insane part was your saying that if there was any comeback it would be on me...even though it was you who released it into the public domain. Crazed. Take responsibilities for your own actions.
"Snitch". You child. Again, take responsibilities for your actions. You at least appear to have broken LinkedIn rules, someone calls you out for it, and you, a businessman apparently, call them a "Snitch." Hmm, nice set of ethics you have there.
Regarding your use of a pseudonym in business. I'm pleased I've made people aware of it. I've looked at this further, and sole traders don't have to use their real names in business.
Although I would not do business with a sole trader who introduced themselves in their promotional material under a pseudonym. I would be suspicious as to why they did't use their real name.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. What? Let me rub my eyes and make sure I'm seeing this right. Talk about losing control over the public perception of your own slander campaign and revealing the true self you've been desperately trying to hide. He's now wildly attacking other people and continuing to post their private conversations?
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Carlos Oliver Coke ALL ALONG. Imagine him doing this to some academic, simply because he/she holds different views than him. He's making the entire pro-African ancient Egypt community look bad and giving them just what they need to further stigmatize it as a loony bunch. Of course, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't care. When Carlos Oliver Coke was told it could backfire he said he needed to make sure he had used everyone to the max before he was going to burn bridges.
If' we're going to burn bridges, then we'd need to be pretty sure that we're in a place where we no longer need them. --Carlos Oliver Coke
This is how this sneaky, slippery Judas talks when thinks it's safe to reveal his true self behind the scenes. Then he has the nerve to slander others about their perceived lack of "ethics" in public.
Here is more on the sneaky Carlos Oliver Coke Judas, privately admitting that he's actively censoring himself in public, and that the facade he's holding up in public is not really who he is:
Some joker may have hacked my account and found info on me, but I was careful not to say anything that I wouldn't say in public in mixed company. --Carlos Oliver Coke
You just can't make this stuff up
So lioness, tell me, how does it feel to have a 50 year old back-stabbing, vindictive creep attack you and post your private conversations? He's now posting your PMs because you have different views than him. Multiply that by 100 and you get what he's subjected some of these academics to.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carlos Oliver Coke knows he botched his slander campaign. He knows it's backfiring now that it's been shown that he simply keeps spamming his allegations after they've been shown to be completely false. Moreover, by living up to what people more familiar with him have been saying about him for a long time (i.e. that Carlos Oliver Coke always embarrasses himself because his apparently low IQ causes him to misdiagnoses people and situations) he's proving how accurate this description about his character is.
So, having failed horribly in that department and realizing how much of a dead end it has become, he now continues his slander about me in the fairy tale summary he cooked up. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke throws in his other trademark slander techniques (e.g. tricking an 'expert' into favorably commenting on one of these issues in a private conversation and then posting their fake support in order to drum up more fake support).
The creepy 50 year old Carlos Oliver Coke character has lied ABOUT academics in public, and has lied TO academics, so what else is new?
The good thing is I have records of all these (deleted) threads Carlos Oliver Coke is lying about, so it's easy for me to prove he's lying. Soon, I will expose all these lies in a counter post, along with all of Carlos Oliver Coke's earlier lies.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: I've looked at this further, and sole traders don't have to use their real names in business.
Translation: "Damn, after my previous attempts to slander forum posters and academics, this attempt failed, too. This is not going to look good to the people who are looking me up now that my internet reputation has dwindled beyond recovery. Trolling and repeatedly spamming already disproved slander, as I used to do in the past when it got too hot under my feet, isn't going to work either as people are onto my foul tactics now. I better do some damage control and admit that my chronic paranoia and senility led me down this embarrassing path of once again having to back down from my failed slander campaigns."Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just re-read the Sidney Anson's latest additions to this thread and registered this:
quote: Tell me this doesn't sound like Carlos Oliver Coke is an emasculated, middle-aged creep with no life. Which grown man you know who is in his fifties[?], talks like this? Why do I get the impression that Carlos Oliver Coke is engaging in this pedo-ish behavior, i.e. stalking and saving profile images from social media, all the time?
You.little.fcking.pr1ck.
Looks like you've just proved that there actually is something wrong with you.
Get help.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see some more examples of Anson's maladjusted, psychotic online behaviour--
Another example, this time from a 'debate' with 'Akachi'--
16/08/2014
quote: Does your non-reply mean that the lingerie your boyfriend asked you to wear is cutting off the blood supply to your balls, and that you're scared sh!tless to address the fact that your psychotic outburst went on public record?
Next is a message to the former moderator on this site (Tukuler/Ausar) who made the mistake of not frequenting Anson's Facebook site sufficiently often...don't be surprised if Anson, as he's done in the past, tries to rationalise this message some sort of everyday forum banning order:
02/09/2014
quote: I invited you, never deleted you like the others,despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my face and apparently don't even have the decency to at least speak the truth. Have it your way, then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by not confronting you in the open or slandering your name by banning you and announcing why openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of you ladies at the gossip table during your next get together. The moment I see you rear your head in the FB group, you're banned.
posted
Carlos Oliver Coke's emasculated mind considers trash talking back at a known troll who has trash talked me over the course of several discussions "disturbing" and "psychotic". But, what else do you expect from an effeminate beauty salon worker?
Is it a coincidence that a privacy breaching troll who gets a hard-on from gossiping and spreading false rumors about about academics and disseminating private emails like tabloids, works in cosmetics and beauty?
quote: Why do I get the impression that Carlos Oliver Coke is engaging in this pedo-ish behavior , i.e. stalking and saving profile images from social media, all the time?
Pedo-ish behaviour?
What sort of injured, unfortunate, pitiable mind would publicly accuse someone of exhibiting behaviour akin to that of a paedophile?
Oh boy, you've really outdone yourself. I guess it will leave an impression on whoever googles your name and follows this thread.
Unfortunately, someone from the 'other side', the people who hate us for who we are, has been following our argument and has posted your "pedo-ish" comment, along with your name and picture. It's also been noticed that your Willy Emblem LinkedIn page has been deleted, but too late to stop the dissemination of your image.
I'm going to leave this now so that your comments are among the last anyone reading this thread will see. I don't want your comments to get buried, and may cut and repaste in future if they do.
Well done Sidney Anson, I'll now leave you to have the last word--I know how critically important this is to you.
quote: Why do I get the impression that Carlos Oliver Coke is engaging in this pedo-ish behavior , i.e. stalking and saving profile images from social media, all the time?
........
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not so soon, Miss Beauty Salon. Let's for once and for all settle how much validity there has been to your many neurotic slander campaigns and repeated spamming of debunked accusations. I want your chronic paranoia and senility out in the open, for everyone to see.
Carlos Oliver Coke, can you confess to the forum that your first smear campaign against me (i.e. that I supposedly did a "180 degree turn" in regards to my views on western racial language) was just another bizarre gaffe on your part that can be blamed squarely on your paranoia and senility?
----------
One day in 2014, when I finally got the chance to see just how batsh!t crazy Carlos Oliver Coke is, something very interesting happened. Carlos Oliver Coke got emotional, bitter and disgruntled after I and others who had supported what initially seemed to be a legitimate effort against academic racism, distanced ourselves from the way he applied racial language in anthro discourse.
In a forum where the atmosphere was collegial and focused on papers, Carlos Oliver Coke stooped to a new low when he suddenly had an emotional meltdown and started lashing out at people for disagreeing with him and taking sides with his opponents on a specific issue.
Carlos Coke eventually left that forum (permanently), but not before he wrote a long, angry post about how something "unprincipled" had suddenly happened. As is always the case with Carlos Oliver Coke, he is paranoid and slow-witted, so he tends to jump to conclusions. And once he does, he will keep spamming his false allegations and NEVER stop and admit he was wrong.
No different on that day. After Carlos Oliver Coke repeatedly failed to stand his ground with his own arguments (he was called out and started justifying his behavior by pointing to the approval of others, like a toddler who can't think for himself) his emotions reached a boiling point. It got to the point where he got overtly confrontational and, eventually, started accusing members of abandoning and realigning their views at will and based on convenience:
"It feels like something unprincipled has happened here over the last 24 hours, for what I don't know - saving face? I don't like the idea of contributing to a site where previously held beliefs are expediently abandoned, apparently for the sake of trying to win an argument." --Carlos Oliver Coke
Aside from his delusions about his contributions, what I'm about to say next is the entertaining part. The part that shows how crazy Carlos Oliver Coke really is. In the excerpt above, Carlos Oliver Coke talks about "24 hours" during which something "unprincipled" supposedly happened. Like I said, what Carlos Oliver Coke describes is the incident in which members distanced themselves from his use of racial terminology.
But when you read the entire conversation that preceded that incident, you can't help but come to the conclusion that this Carlos Oliver Coke outburst is just another example of his senility, intransigent denseness and paranoia. For example, one of the first comments that were made way before the incident Carlos Oliver Coke references, is the following comment:
"We especially need professionals who know their way around the pitfalls like Keita does; folks that they can't just write off as pseudoscientists, the way they're doing "afrocentrics". I haven't seen them corner Keita yet. That's because he's smart about the way he frames his language (e.g. Saharo-Tropical variants), focusses on what matters and how he approaches things so as to leave them with little to retort with, without making themselves look unreasonable" --Swenet
In other words, there was no shift in positions, supposedly to "save face". The so-called shift that got Carlos Oliver Coke's panties in a bunch and triggered his neurosis-fueled fits that day on that forum, as well as the many times here on ES when he tried to smear my name with the same spammed accusations, was purely a figment of his rabid imagination.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is how this sneaky, slippery Judas talks when thinks it's safe to reveal his true self behind the scenes. Then he has the nerve to slander others about their perceived lack of "ethics" in public.
posted
^, yeah pretty crappy of Sidney to send Tukuler's FB image wasn't it, Beyoku? The 'incident' which generated this thread? Read the start of it to remind yourself of how he sent me a PM trying to get me, out of some insane grudge, to criticise Tukuler. And what of his using a fake name on LinkedIn?
Anyway, let's take another look at his BS, posted elsewhere.
In reply to DougM's assertion that racism was still a problem in terms of how academics handled the population affinities of the ancient Egyptians, Sidney said:
quote:
11/12/2016 ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
To be clear to anyone not apprised of this, those e-mails he refers to are the responses I received from academics that I shared with him. Anyway, let's see what he said toward the end of the time that he was privy to the correspondence:
An Egyptologist had replied:
quote: April 17 2014 “People sometimes write books or organise exhibitions about 'black' Pharaohs. But the same people would never dare write about traditional Chinese culture under the heading 'Yellow Emperors'; and 'Red' Indians are now 'Native North Americans'. Even 'black' Americans are becoming 'Afro-Americans'. Best wishes:
Sidney Anson, after reading the response, replied:
quote:
April 20 2014
I misunderstood his comment. I thought his angle was to criticise the oft-expressed "black pharaoh" thing in reference to Nubians or a minority of Egyptian kings, where the tacit implication is that a black identity and an authentically ancient Egyptian identity are mutually exclusive. If that's what he was trying to say--that black in this context is offensive on par with yellow or red--that's indeed a very strange thing to say. Who exactly would feel discomfort with the use of black in reference to Ancient Egyptians? Certainly not the Afram community. He's projecting his own psychological discomfort with the term! Refer to ancient rulers as red and yellow and you may get backlash from Native Americans and East Asian communities. Refer to Egyptian kings as black and you upset racists who feel discomfort with allocating advanced societies to black people. He's literally window dressing his own discomfort with black as looking out for the interests of black people in the area of racial sensitivities. This is projecting of the highest order. He's not only being racist but, by putting black on par with truly offensive terms, he's framing the situation as if he's looking out for our interests. I think you've hit a sensitive spot; African is okay, just don't say black.”
It's said with a certain conviction, but it's hard to tell now the above all bullshit, or whether he was being sincere. I still don't fully understand this: "African is okay, just don't say black.” Was this irony, or was Sidney actually suggesting that I ditch "black" so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Egyptologist?
Whichever it was, Sidney Anson, after his apparent disgruntlement and ensuing 180, would now have us believe that the criticisms made on this board and elsewhere of certain academic disciplines, are imaginary.
Whenever I come by this forum, and see Sidney Anson making claims inconsistent with past utterances, then if I have any information that highlights his BS, I'll be certain to post it.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the last couple of pages of the following thread where Sidney Anson, in full lying trollshitter troll mode, writes bollocks that only the credulous and slack-jawed would take seriously:
Anson, if you're gonna troll through misrepresentation, exaggeration and lies with the purpose of discrediting someone, then at least do it properly i.e. when they're active on the forum. I last posted back in June, and you were still posting about me a month later!
Out of interest, when posting, did you experience alarmingly visible facial tics and involuntary head jerks?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way Anson lies is worthy of psychological study. It’s not just a case of him selectively putting forward facts that support his argument, he actually deliberately misrepresents and lies. This has got to be sociopathic.
Anson, is your disorder a source of friction offline in your real life?
Just to remind anyone reading that this is the same ‘man’ (Sidney Anson) who used a fake name on his LinkedIn account (Willy Emblem) in contravention of LinkedIn rules (see above). And that this is the same ‘man’ who sent a psychotic PM to ES veteran Tukuler because, believe it or not, Tuks didn’t spend enough time on Anson’s FB site! --------------------------------------- Sidney Anson: I invited you, never deleted you like the others,despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my face and apparently don't even have the decency to at least speak the truth. Have it your way, then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by not confronting you in the open or slandering your name by banning you and announcing why openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of you ladies at the gossip table during your next get together. The moment I see you rear your headin the FB group, you're banned. -----------------------------------------------
Yep, that e-mail is genuine, and Anson showed no contrition or embarrassment when Tukuler released it, but instead tried to spin it as something advantageous in his feud with him. Who in their late 20’s bitches that people aren’t paying enough attention to their FB site? Eerie.
How Tukuler held it down in his response to the little pr1ck, I’ll never know: ----------------------------------------- I was raised to not go where not wanted.
I hope you get a wife, some children, and standing in a real life community. That's where it's really at. Face to face with real people who can reach out and touch you when needed. -------------------------------------------
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic