Bash Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Not only are you a vulgarian of rather limited verbal skills but your spelling is laughably inadequate.  By nickers - I guess you mean 'knickers'.  The two words have entirely different roots.  And the analogy in any event is - at best is juvenile - if not infantile.  But may I impose on you to address the point if you can bend your mind to concentrate for that long.  You CLAIMED that I could get into my threads notwithstanding being banned.  I recommend that you get EF.com admin to acknowledge this before I, for one, will be able to believe you.

I will meanwhile email your post to admin and ask them if this, indeed, is a facility that they allow banned members.  It will be interesting.

And while I'm at it I'll also forward them this last post of yours lest they suspect, for one moment, that they're dealing with a sensible adult when they entertain your own membership.

[fuzzytomcat]

Not only are you a vulgarian of rather limited verbal skills but your spelling is laughably inadequate.  By nickers - I guess you mean 'knickers'.  The two words have entirely different roots.  And the analogy in any event is - at best is juvenile - if not infantile.  But may I impose on you to address the point if you can bend your mind to concentrate for that long.  You CLAIMED that I could get into my threads notwithstanding being banned.  I recommend that you get EF.com admin to acknowledge this before I, for one, will be able to believe you.

I will meanwhile email your post to admin and ask them if this, indeed, is a facility that they allow banned members.  It will be interesting.

And while I'm at it I'll also forward them this last post of yours lest they suspect, for one moment, that they're dealing with a sensible adult when they entertain your own membership.

Oh .... I see now only your 1,800 posts are worth editing or deleting ..... not any other forum member that posted in the thread(s), their contributions are nothing now to you if removed ??

So sad and not a single reference posting or post number from four forums I post in to substantiate any allegations .... just statements no proof of "IN MY WORDS"

[Ted Ewert]

I don't really understand the blind defense of EF displayed by Glen here. He is well aware of the questionable characters and shady dealings going on at the site, but chooses to ignore all that and instead go after Rosemary for some reason.
He is well aware that Aaron has pulled this same crap with other experimenters. He has read personal accounts by people who have had the same thing done to them as was done to Rosemary. He is also aware of the deceitful agenda openly admitted to by the vaunted "PHD" at that site.
Yet he continues to doggedly grasp at straws to try and discredit Rosemary. The complete lack of substance in his arguments is pathetically obvious, yet he won't give up. Why? What can he possibly gain from this besides the demise of his credibility?
If Glen wants to expose dishonesty and double dealing, EF administration would provide a target rich environment. Going after active experimenters with nebulous and flimsy charges is just stupid IMO.

Ted

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The following a faithful copy of the text that I've just sent to Admin at EF.com

Dear Admin

Glen has claimed that notwithstanding being banned, EF.com will allow me the right to amend my posts and I demand that right. This is unequivocally claimed in his denial that I cannot get into the forum in my own name or any derivatives of my previous user names.

Posted today at OU.COM
A MEMBER CAN EDIT OR DELETE A POST IN A THREAD AT ANY TIME FOREVER OR YEARS UNLESS THE THREAD IS LOCKED FOR ARCHIVAL PURPOSES

He has also posted the following which I am simply adding to remind you how your members advertise themselves.

Posted today at OU.COM
So very silly ..... shall I hang some scissors on the threads door so some guests and members can use them to place holes in their nickers so they can see ??

Here I think he's telling us that he can get members and guests to view the threads should they require it.  I'd be interested to know exactly how he uses those scissors and what relevance this has to my knickers?

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I don't really understand the blind defense of EF displayed by Glen here. He is well aware of the questionable characters and shady dealings going on at the site, but chooses to ignore all that and instead go after Rosemary for some reason.
He is well aware that Aaron has pulled this same crap with other experimenters. He has read personal accounts by people who have had the same thing done to them as was done to Rosemary. He is also aware of the deceitful agenda openly admitted to by the vaunted "PHD" at that site.
Yet he continues to doggedly grasp at straws to try and discredit Rosemary. The complete lack of substance in his arguments is pathetically obvious, yet he won't give up. Why? What can he possibly gain from this besides the demise of his credibility?
If Glen wants to expose dishonesty and double dealing, EF administration would provide a target rich environment. Going after active experimenters with nebulous and flimsy charges is just stupid IMO.

Ted

THANKS for speaking up Ted.  I think the public would be well served to be warned about the duplicities at EF.com.  I will get around to a full disclosure but am still to find out what's legally permissable regarding the exposure of emails and the rest.  It's going to get nasty.  But we've already got a thread lined up.

Kindest regards,
Rosie