Author Topic: Jackie  (Read 41793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6670
Re: Jackie
« Reply #255 on: June 24, 2012, 02:47:PM »
I can't get over just how ignorant people are about all this abuse and seem to want to treat this euphemistically termed "red" forum as if it is a legitimate forum with fair views of things and interested in actual justice? I don't get it are they really as blind as bats.
Someone said to me this morning that they are thoroughly demoralised about the whole thing. They've tried their best but because of all this abuse from various corners they feel utterly defeated. I must say I often feel the same myself. I cannot understand just why someone would set up a forum under the guise of miscarriage of justice and go on to target innocent members of another forum just because they are fighting what they believe to be a gross miscarriage of justice. Not only that but when these people  retaliate against all this sickening abuse that forum complains that they are the victims of the abuse. I tell you right now I am thoroughly pissed of with these creatures. Both those who dish out the abuse and those who will not see it as abuse, but would rather look on that terrible place as if they are a legitimate opposing contender. Well right now I really am at the bottom of the pit of depression about with this whole affair and must I feel make a final decision about it all. Tell you the truth I'm tired. I've been beat. Congratulations all you foul trolls. You can now go back to the swamp to have a victory party with old lamberton. You've finally won where I am concerned.

Grahame  -  I agree with your assessment on this.  However, do not let them beat you.  They have not won.  Most people can see them for what they are.


Neil

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #256 on: June 24, 2012, 02:57:PM »
Grahame  -  I agree with your assessment on this.  However, do not let them beat you.  They have not won.  Most people can see them for what they are.
I agree.

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #257 on: June 24, 2012, 03:09:PM »
Its not a forum not like ones ive seen and debating among, its nothing , obsolete,it has no reason or purpose to exist , Lamberton speaks for no one it has no structure you agree with what they say or get the hell out , mikes forum is nothing like theirs because his offers nothing .

bloggs and son

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #258 on: June 24, 2012, 03:17:PM »
I just want to acknowledge my support for the admin and moderators. I am and remain fully convinced of Jeremy Bamber's innocence. I believe the moderators are the best the forum can have and have great faith in them. Whether Jackie comes back or not I'm not sure. But let us hope some good comes out of this great disappointment that has overtaken us.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Jackie
« Reply #259 on: June 24, 2012, 03:20:PM »
mertol22  This is an excellent forum with members like we have and we are all aware what the other forum stands for and the members they abuse are the people they know count and they would like to be rid of them then they could have a free hand.

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #260 on: June 24, 2012, 03:39:PM »
mertol22  This is an excellent forum with members like we have and we are all aware what the other forum stands for and the members they abuse are the people they know count and they would like to be rid of them then they could have a free hand.
Susan the remove,. life ban of jackie preece has no prize awarded there is nothing gained  i see no beat the drum here and let the band play, it was nothing more than a clash of personalalities a ban is not the answer its what that site wanted.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Jackie
« Reply #261 on: June 24, 2012, 03:45:PM »
Hi mertol22 I like Jackie as much as anyone on the forum but I don,t know the reason she was banned so I can,t comment it all happened quickly and I can,t remember seeing anything posted as to why this happened.

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #262 on: June 27, 2012, 01:21:PM »
fancy someone trying to take the roof from over jacks head wonder what the motivation is

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #263 on: June 27, 2012, 01:59:PM »
did jacks uncover something crooked

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Jackie
« Reply #264 on: June 27, 2012, 02:34:PM »
did jacks uncover something crooked

In what sense Kazza?

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #265 on: June 27, 2012, 03:11:PM »
In what sense Kazza?

method in the madness

from shakespeare's hamlet, 1602. the actual line from the play is 'though this be madness yet there is method in it'.

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #266 on: June 27, 2012, 03:18:PM »
the hardest person to forgive is yourself

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #267 on: June 27, 2012, 03:27:PM »
Hi Grahame

You're not going to like this...but it sounds quite healthy to me like a competitive team game.  Better than the 'Shit forum' or 'Swamp forum'.

Admittedly my knowledge of all the historical stuff is sketchy to say the least so if I was up to speed I may feel differently.

By the way keep seeing the word 'abuse' used.  Interested to understand what the definition is in terms of forum activity and spin offs?  Sounds pretty nasty.

abuse comes in many shapes and sizes. covert abuse would best describe this


Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #268 on: June 27, 2012, 03:54:PM »
Oh, okay. I just thought people believed it was because she was arguing with me.

jacks knows things

Offline Jacksmate

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Jackie
« Reply #269 on: June 27, 2012, 03:56:PM »
This forum doesn't stand or fall on the contribution of one individual.

Yes Jackie has been very supportive of JB and has done some invaluable work raising the profile of the case and getting people like ngb and Simon McKay involved and helped out to get the documentary transmitted.

However in terms of actual debate on this forum, it is clear that Jackie fell out with and upset a number of posters, myself included and she certainly made a number of nasty posts attacking various people. I know she has suffered numerous attacks on the other forum which are indefensible, but I was shocked by the nastiness of some of Jackie's responses which further fuelled the fire and just made things worse in my opinion.

Surely the focus of the forum should not be on debating the validity of Jackie's ban, or saying that we miss her or are going to leave if she is not reinstated. That's just an idiotic reaction in my opinion. Other than the mods none of us know what happened or why Jackie was banned so we should trust in the integrity of the mods that they have made the correct decision.

Instead, we should focus on why we are all here, which is to debate / discuss JB, his case and the probable / possible miscarriage of justice he has suffered.

when did the falling out begin petey what did jacks know