Too old to wear knee socks to school?

[Mary24]

Rebman,

Thank you for showing that there are some people in these forums who has an ounce of common sense.

You are absolutely correct that I never had a single post outside of this thread (other than the members area) and had nothing to do with nappies or punishment uniforms although I was involved in a discussion with some people who were discussing "punishment uniforms".

My reason for posting in this forum was because I was not subjected to a punishment uniform (that's to say by deliberate parental action) but was subject to quite strict parents and my school uniform and out of school clothes were restricted by virtue of what my parents bought me and I got the distinct impression that I should not buy anything significantly "up to date" with the then teenage fashion.

As such, it was not a punishment uniform but it felt like it at times as I was often wearing clothes both in and out of school that girls three years my junior were still wearing and therefore I empathised with other posters.

Whilst I didn't like this very much at the time it did keep me out of the school "crazy gang" and as a result I made much better friends which I still have today.

I therefore think that some form of parental control on clothing is necessary to prevent girls getting too "sexy" too early in life. The Colonel does not seem to favour any form of control of punishment at all.

"The colonel" jumped in with abuse and a series of utterly false accusations for which there was not a ounce of evidence and throwing accusations that I was a paedophile, I was posting to myself and that I was several other people I was not.

The colonels problem is that merely because he has not personally experienced everything in the world then it doesn't exist or has never happened.

I did try reasoning with him, I tried ignoring him and I tried reporting him to the moderators who should have banned him as he has broken all the rules of the board you agree to when you sign up.

When reason fails then I'm afraid I was left no option other that to resort to the same tactics that he trades on. Other may just lie down and take it, but rest assured, I won't.

However, to claim that posting a picture of a battered women with a threatening slogan and claim it was done in jest is ludicrous, as the other posts since indicate he has no respect for women at all.

Rebman, Thank you for posting out, INDEPENDENTLY of myself that I have not lied, unlike some.

Mary24

[The Colonel]

For other members - Mary24's member posts have been removed. They can no longer be viewed.

[The Colonel]

Rebman = Mary24?

Or possibly fake Mary24?

You appear to have made the same errors . . .

[GEORGE ZIMMER]

MARY24 I WAS TAKING AN EVENING STROLL DOWN THE STREET AND SAW YOUR MOTHER WALKING TOWARDS ME. MY BEEF HAMMER CALLED FOR SWEET RELIEF AND STRAINED AGAINST THE ZIPPER OF MY PANTS. I COULD NOT TAKE THIS PUNISHMENT ANY LONGER. SO I SWUNG MY MONOLITHIC MAN MEAT THAT GOD PESTOWED UPON ME AND KNOCKED HER INTO A DUMPSTER IN A NEARBY ALLEY. I THEN PROCEEDED TO RAM MY EXTRA LARGE MAN SALAMI INTO HER TIGHT HOLE. HER UNWILLING MOIST LIPS COULD NOT TAKE THE PUNISHMENT MY THIRTY POUND MAGILLA GORILLA DID UPON HER. AFTER SHOOTING MY SPECIAL BLEND OF POLONIOUS NUT NAPALM FLAVORED BUTTER, I USED MY EXTRA LARGE WRECKING BALLS TO SMASH A HOLE INTO THE WALL OF A BUILDING AND ESCAPED INTO THE NIGHT. I GARUNTEE IT

[Ivan Diederhoff]

MARY24 I WAS TAKING AN EVENING STROLL DOWN THE STREET AND SAW YOUR MOTHER WALKING TOWARDS ME. MY BEEF HAMMER CALLED FOR SWEET RELIEF AND STRAINED AGAINST THE ZIPPER OF MY PANTS. I COULD NOT TAKE THIS PUNISHMENT ANY LONGER. SO I SWUNG MY MONOLITHIC MAN MEAT THAT GOD PESTOWED UPON ME AND KNOCKED HER INTO A DUMPSTER IN A NEARBY ALLEY. I THEN PROCEEDED TO RAM MY EXTRA LARGE MAN SALAMI INTO HER TIGHT HOLE. HER UNWILLING MOIST LIPS COULD NOT TAKE THE PUNISHMENT MY THIRTY POUND MAGILLA GORILLA DID UPON HER. AFTER SHOOTING MY SPECIAL BLEND OF POLONIOUS NUT NAPALM FLAVORED BUTTER, I USED MY EXTRA LARGE WRECKING BALLS TO SMASH A HOLE INTO THE WALL OF A BUILDING AND ESCAPED INTO THE NIGHT. I GARUNTEE IT

Rebman, every time someone says "where's your evidence" I immediately say, there's someone with something to hide. I don't need evidence, Mary24 posts all the evidence I need. I don't know about all the pedo stuff. My concern came in, when she was in members chat with the "Colonel is a wifebeater" over a picture. She kept on and on and on, about how it can't be in jest, but I go to demotivateus.com, find a shitload of funny pics, and even post more of them here, but she doesn't go on about my being a wife beater, or abuser!!!! She doesn't know the first thing about Colonel's life outside this board, nor do I. So I don't call him a wifebeater or abuser. PERIOD. That's as far as I am into this. She wanted to go into the member's area and troll away, and she got more than she bargained for. Just like Colonel, if I find a particularly nasty troll, and they rub me the wrong way, I WILL let them have it. If she hadn't been an insufferable cvnt in member's I wouldn't have bothered.

Chivalry is OK, but you just wait. Some time, you'll have an opinion on something she finds unacceptable, and you will get what colonel got. Will you defend her then? Whatever personal differences you have with Colonel, if you don't come across as a troll when talking to him, he will be reasonable. Mary24 was a troll from the start with the wifebeater bullshiit, so she got what was coming to her. If she does it again, she'll get more of the same. If she wants to be a human being, fine, she'll be treated as such.

[Rebman]

Rebman = Mary24?

Or possibly fake Mary24?

You appear to have made the same errors . . .

The Colonel obviously hasn’t learnt any new tricks. When he can’t answer the points presented to him, he invariably accuses the questioner of being someone else. Let me see now, so far I have been myron, Swee, JulieH, McMum (among others), and now I am apparently Mary24. It makes interesting entertainment to look through the forums and see which members and guests are really other members or guests according to the Colonel. We can see right through your tricks Colonel. How about some real evidence to back up your libellous assertions for a change? Sorry I forgot, you don’t have any evidence, do you?

[Rebman]

Rebman, every time someone says "where's your evidence" I immediately say, there's someone with something to hide. I don't need evidence, Mary24 posts all the evidence I need. I don't know about all the pedo stuff.

Ivan,

So if I read you correctly, you are saying that if the Colonel makes an unsubstantiated allegation against someone, no one should ask him for his evidence, because the person who does so must have something to hide. Where is the logic in that? The Colonel has a history of making such allegations against anyone who disagrees with him, especially those who expose his lies. What sort of justice system does not allow questioning of the person making the allegation?

I have already stated that I do not condone unsubstantiated personal attacks, but for you to say that you only consider ‘selective’ evidence clearly indicates personal bias. Have you considered that the “pedo stuff” (as you put it) occurred BEFORE the "Colonel is a wifebeater" incident in member’s chat? Have you considered that whereas the Colonel had no evidence that Mary24 was a paedophile, Mary24 had some (albeit hearsay) evidence that the Colonel may have beaten his wife? This came from a member who stated that the Colonel had PM’d him/her admitting in confidence that he had once done so. That member had been so enraged by the Colonel’s behaviour that he/she decided to break confidentiality and go public with the information.

I personally would never put trust in such hearsay evidence, but I can understand Mary24’s frustration at being called a pedo with no evidence and wanting to get revenge on her accuser with whatever evidence was available.

Mary24 was a troll from the start with the wifebeater bullshiit, so she got what was coming to her. If she does it again, she'll get more of the same. If she wants to be a human being, fine, she'll be treated as such.

Mary24 was not a troll from the start. The “wifebeater” allegations only started AFTER she had been subjected to the most vile attack by the Colonel, with unsubstantiated allegations of being a paedophile. You have clearly not taken this into consideration. You have also failed to answer my question of what your response would have been if a member had alleged that you were a paedophile.

I put another question to you. If Mary24 was condemned as a “vile troll” for alleging that the Colonel beat his wife, then why was the Colonel not condemned as a “vile troll” for alleging that Mary24 had participated in paedophilia? This looks suspiciously like one rule for the former and another rule for the latter, does it not? One should not make judgements without considering ALL the evidence. If you were summoned to do jury service, would you say: “I don’t need evidence”, and decide that the defendant must be guilty because you didn’t like the look of him? When council for the defence asked for the evidence against his client, would you conclude that council for the defence must have “something to hide”? Of course not, so why are you doing the equivalent here?

[Ivan Diederhoff]

Apparently, Reb, you have got me wrong, so let me try to boil this down a little more. I never saw the pedo stuff between Colonel and Mary. Not she, you or I are beyond the ability to assume multiple identities on a chat board. Easily done, and well documented, need evidence? FRED75! He's a guru on multiple ID's. FACT

I saw the wifebeater thing, and I saw the pic that was posted, and I didn't get anywhere near the nasty vibe she did, and even other female members told her to drop it. FACT

She opted to keep on, that made her a troll, and I let into her. FACT

Colonel needs no help in defending himself against a nimrod troll, he does just fine putting them down. I however, don't like the tone of association because a picture is taken out of context. Hence, I post even worse pictures than the one Colonel posted. If mary was so against domestic violence, I would also have suffered the abuser label, but I didn't. FACT So Mary had it out for one member, that is a troll attack. PERIOD.

Yeah, I'm giving Alfie due credit for the use of "FACT!" I don't plagiarize.

[Ivan Diederhoff]

trolls got that name because they have no other intention than to stir up shiit. That's all. If there were no members, there would be no board. No board means no trolls. having members means, inevitably, you will have trolls.

So we get used to the idea, and abuse the sorry idiots and give them attention they so love.

[Rebman]

Apparently, Reb, you have got me wrong, so let me try to boil this down a little more. I never saw the pedo stuff between Colonel and Mary.

Then I suggest that you take a look at the Colonel’s posts in this thread on Friday 19th Dec and Saturday 20th Dec. Just because you hadn’t seen it does not mean that the Colonel did not insult and libel Mary24 with the accusations of being a pervert and a paedophile. You have still not said how you would have reacted to being labelled a Paedophile.

Not she, you or I are beyond the ability to assume multiple identities on a chat board. Easily done, and well documented, need evidence? FRED75! He's a guru on multiple ID's. FACT

I am perfectly aware of how easy it is. The Colonel, despite his protests, has employed this very technique on numerous occasions. I always log in under my user name Rebman before posting.

I saw the wifebeater thing, and I saw the pic that was posted, and I didn't get anywhere near the nasty vibe she did, and even other female members told her to drop it. FACT

As I stated before, Mary24 was not the originator of the wife beating accusation. A member (Coolman) stated in Member’s Chit Chat that the Colonel had admitted that he had once done it, but Coolman later admitted to not being sure after the Colonel protested. Coolman did however object to the battered woman picture which the Colonel plastered all over this thread. Mary24 (unwisely, but perhaps understandably in the circumstances) used it to get back at the Colonel for his unsubstantiated libellous accusations against her, calling her a paedophile (a label he has also used against McMum without a shred of evidence). I very much doubt whether the members who told Mary24 to “drop it” were aware of the full background on this thread.

She opted to keep on, that made her a troll, and I let into her. FACT

The Colonel libels members and guests continually without evidence. Does that not make him a troll also? Why don’t you “let into” the Colonel, or do you selectively choose to overlook the Colonel’s numerous libellous allegations. Do you have a mind of your own or do you automatically believe everything the Colonel tells you without checking for yourself?

Colonel needs no help in defending himself against a nimrod troll, he does just fine putting them down. I however, don't like the tone of association because a picture is taken out of context. Hence, I post even worse pictures than the one Colonel posted. If mary was so against domestic violence, I would also have suffered the abuser label, but I didn't. FACT So Mary had it out for one member, that is a troll attack. PERIOD.

You did not accuse Mary24 of being a paedophile, the Colonel did. That is the difference. Can’t you see that, or don’t you want to see that?

Why did you blindly copy the Colonel in posting even worse pictures? Are you the Colonel’s lap dog? Are you and the Colonel not aware that by posting such a stream of pictures you are breaking FF posting rules, as they are entirely off-topic (as well as being offensive)?

Yeah, I'm giving Alfie due credit for the use of "FACT!" I don't plagiarize.

I hope your use of the word “FACT” is not as inaccurate as Alf’s use of the word is. Alf says things like:-

Men do not wear skirts. FACT

One only has to mention transvestites, female impersonators, or powderpuff cheerleaders in the USA, to name but a few instances, to show that Alf’s use of “FACT” obviously does not mean ‘fact’ in the dictionary sense.

Returning to the Colonel’s ‘fake’ evidence against Mary24, The Colonel wrote

Third, she posted that boys should be punished by dressing them as girls in another thread called "Peticoat punishment".

There is no such thread.

In this thread, abigail83 wrote

One of my mother's friends dressed her 12 year old son as a little girl because he was bullying his younger sisters. It was meant to be a humiliating punishment and it worked. He was always respectful to his sisters afterwards. I think he had to spend a week during the school holidays dressed in girls' clothes.

There was no response by Mary24.

In a thread entitled ‘Boys and discipline’, Tanzi wrote

Does anyone agree with the use of petticoat discipline?

Guest wrote

Too bad The Colonel never had any petticoat discipline.

No sign of Mary24 posting in this particular thread either, or any response to a Mary24 posting by the Colonel.

Yet more of the Colonel’s lies? Throughout these FF forums countless members and guests have complained about the Colonel’s lies, yet you don’t see them (or don’t want to see them). I sometimes think that the Colonel actually believes his own lies.

The Colonel’s modus operandi is so transparent. He states that he only lies to trolls. Whenever a member or guest exposes the Colonel’s lies, he promptly labels them as being trolls, thus justifying his lying to them.

[Ivan Diederhoff]

I call them as I see them, Reb. Who I let into and who I don't, and more importantly, WHEN is MY discretion! I think you protest too much.

[The Colonel]

Apparently, Reb, you have got me wrong, so let me try to boil this down a little more. I never saw the pedo stuff between Colonel and Mary.

Then I suggest that you take a look at the Colonel’s posts in this thread on Friday 19th Dec and Saturday 20th Dec. Just because you hadn’t seen it does not mean that the Colonel did not insult and libel Mary24 with the accusations of being a pervert and a paedophile. You have still not said how you would have reacted to being labelled a Paedophile.

Not she, you or I are beyond the ability to assume multiple identities on a chat board. Easily done, and well documented, need evidence? FRED75! He's a guru on multiple ID's. FACT

I am perfectly aware of how easy it is. The Colonel, despite his protests, has employed this very technique on numerous occasions. I always log in under my user name Rebman before posting.

I saw the wifebeater thing, and I saw the pic that was posted, and I didn't get anywhere near the nasty vibe she did, and even other female members told her to drop it. FACT

As I stated before, Mary24 was not the originator of the wife beating accusation. A member (Coolman) stated in Member’s Chit Chat that the Colonel had admitted that he had once done it, but Coolman later admitted to not being sure after the Colonel protested. Coolman did however object to the battered woman picture which the Colonel plastered all over this thread. Mary24 (unwisely, but perhaps understandably in the circumstances) used it to get back at the Colonel for his unsubstantiated libellous accusations against her, calling her a paedophile (a label he has also used against McMum without a shred of evidence). I very much doubt whether the members who told Mary24 to “drop it” were aware of the full background on this thread.

She opted to keep on, that made her a troll, and I let into her. FACT

The Colonel libels members and guests continually without evidence. Does that not make him a troll also? Why don’t you “let into” the Colonel, or do you selectively choose to overlook the Colonel’s numerous libellous allegations. Do you have a mind of your own or do you automatically believe everything the Colonel tells you without checking for yourself?

Colonel needs no help in defending himself against a nimrod troll, he does just fine putting them down. I however, don't like the tone of association because a picture is taken out of context. Hence, I post even worse pictures than the one Colonel posted. If mary was so against domestic violence, I would also have suffered the abuser label, but I didn't. FACT So Mary had it out for one member, that is a troll attack. PERIOD.

You did not accuse Mary24 of being a paedophile, the Colonel did. That is the difference. Can’t you see that, or don’t you want to see that?

Why did you blindly copy the Colonel in posting even worse pictures? Are you the Colonel’s lap dog? Are you and the Colonel not aware that by posting such a stream of pictures you are breaking FF posting rules, as they are entirely off-topic (as well as being offensive)?

Yeah, I'm giving Alfie due credit for the use of "FACT!" I don't plagiarize.

I hope your use of the word “FACT” is not as inaccurate as Alf’s use of the word is. Alf says things like:-

Men do not wear skirts. FACT

One only has to mention transvestites, female impersonators, or powderpuff cheerleaders in the USA, to name but a few instances, to show that Alf’s use of “FACT” obviously does not mean ‘fact’ in the dictionary sense.

Returning to the Colonel’s ‘fake’ evidence against Mary24, The Colonel wrote

Third, she posted that boys should be punished by dressing them as girls in another thread called "Peticoat punishment".

There is no such thread.

In this thread, abigail83 wrote

One of my mother's friends dressed her 12 year old son as a little girl because he was bullying his younger sisters. It was meant to be a humiliating punishment and it worked. He was always respectful to his sisters afterwards. I think he had to spend a week during the school holidays dressed in girls' clothes.

There was no response by Mary24.

In a thread entitled ‘Boys and discipline’, Tanzi wrote

Does anyone agree with the use of petticoat discipline?

Guest wrote

Too bad The Colonel never had any petticoat discipline.

No sign of Mary24 posting in this particular thread either, or any response to a Mary24 posting by the Colonel.

Yet more of the Colonel’s lies? Throughout these FF forums countless members and guests have complained about the Colonel’s lies, yet you don’t see them (or don’t want to see them). I sometimes think that the Colonel actually believes his own lies.

The Colonel’s modus operandi is so transparent. He states that he only lies to trolls. Whenever a member or guest exposes the Colonel’s lies, he promptly labels them as being trolls, thus justifying his lying to them.

You do protesteth too much.

[The Colonel]

Mary24
FF Troll
2008-2009
R.I.C.S

*R.I.C.S = Rest in Cyberspace.

[Rebman]

I call them as I see them, Reb. Who I let into and who I don't, and more importantly, WHEN is MY discretion! I think you protest too much.

I protest when and wherever I see injustice, and I certainly see it in the Colonel’s postings.

Your response merely confirms my suspicion that you are indeed the Colonel’s lap dog.

[The Colonel]

I call them as I see them, Reb. Who I let into and who I don't, and more importantly, WHEN is MY discretion! I think you protest too much.

I protest when and wherever I see injustice, and I certainly see it in the Colonel’s postings.

Your response merely confirms my suspicion that you are indeed the Colonel’s lap dog.

I don't have lap dogs.

Ivan has his own mind, his own thoughts and his own opinions. He speaks as he finds and so do I.

If you are against injustice as you point out, why were you not speaking up for me when I was accused of wife beating? Why are you not speaking up for my son?

Make all the excuses you like. You are either against injustice or not. You are not.