Disciplinary hearing

Tiddlywinks

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

I hope that from hereon in we can all work together in a constructive manner to help MSE members with their (for the main part) rightful concerns.

BTW what has happened to the OP ?

P.S. re alleged T'ing ; I think you could have worked it out Tom. Anyhow, time to move on.

Taking discussions offline will actually be detrimental to working together.

You are a stranger - you may or may not be qualified to give advice... the same applies to all members.

In conducting consultations in private you remove the ability for peers to comment on your assertions... It will only be your advice and personal opinion. That removes the more rounded 'every man' input that is often useful.

As to employers reading forums - tell us something we don't know... that is why we encourage people to anonymise their posts... It is a simple process.

You treat some here as if they are beneath you and that only you are able to add value to the discussions... That, and your digs at some members, is worrying coming from a self proclaimed philanthropist and legal professional.

Your intentions may be entirely philanthropic or you might be a raving narcissist scouring the net for suckers. That is why I am uncomfortable with taking discussions out of view.

I just feel that some people who come here are vulnerable and may need a balanced view of the 'many' rather than the view of one.

PHILANTHROPIST

I refer to Tiddly's above post.

Once again it is rather disappointing that Tiddly and others prefer to focus on the negative, as opposed to the constructive, and appear to be intent on seeking a protracted internecine dialogue. That is a distraction to the purpose of this thread, but who knows it may sadly keep you and others amused.

Pl also see my other annotations below which I trust offer an adequate response to your remarks ...... and apparent sly "digs".

Therein I also offer an alternative, and hopefully, rational means of ending your "debate".

Remarkably, we do in fact agree on many points, so in part I trust you will concur that that is progress.

Conversely, you and others do increasingly come across as being members of the T'ing community and AE's, but for now I will continue to be respectful and give you and "others" the benefit of the doubt.

BTW what has happened to the OP !?

---

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Taking discussions offline will actually be detrimental to working together. - Agree. I would only generally suggest such an option if it appears that the OP may be about to name and shame the accused. In this instance I did not instruct the OP. I was seeking to protect the OP. To PM was their choice , i.e. it was a legitimate "take it or leave it" option.

You are a stranger - you may or may not be qualified to give advice... the same applies to all members. - Agree ; we are all strangers. My posts, which are principally made on this sub-forum, are generally well received and are based on sound legal training. If you or others want to know my qualifications I will be glad to share them with you and vice versa. .. albeit via a PM !

In conducting consultations in private you remove the ability for peers to comment on your assertions... It will only be your advice and personal opinion. That removes the more rounded 'every man' input that is often useful. - I agree, but please keep matters into context. Out of how many posts have I suggested a PM option to a member ; less than 3-4 !? , and only then because of the rationale explained previously, with which you are entitled to disagree Tiddly. For the vast majority of threads (i.e say > 95% plus) I wholeheartedly agree with you that the open forum is the only option.

As to employers reading forums - tell us something we don't know... that is why we encourage people to anonymise their posts... It is a simple process. - At least you in part agree with "me" on one point Tiddly. You thus should understand why I was concerned re the OP's thread. The content was not particularly "anonymous"; it most likely referred to one of 3-4 employers, and most likely one in particular.

You treat some here as if they are beneath you and that only you are able to add value to the discussions... That, and your digs at some members, is worrying coming from a self proclaimed philanthropist and legal professional. - This is a derogatory and unfounded accusation and comes across as somewhat disturbing T'ing behaviour.

Your intentions may be entirely philanthropic or you might be a raving narcissist scouring the net for suckers. That is why I am uncomfortable with taking discussions out of view. - Gee, with respect you now appear to be getting rather carried away. Your suspicions are out of context. You are even inferring that I may be seeking to make personal gain from the forum. Again, if it may assist, you and others are welcome to PM me and I will happily demonstrate that I am not looking for an ego boost, to make money, or to attract "suckers". I am here to help, as I hope you are. It would be unwise to publish any of my details on the forum and nor should I. We all have a right to privacy and if and when I am able to satisfactorily allay your (and Tom and others) concerns then I trust that you would then of course rightfully respect my privacy.

I just feel that some people who come here are vulnerable and may need a balanced view of the 'many' rather than the view of one. - Again I agree and that, with less than 3-4 legitimate exceptions, is exactly what I have done, and will continue to do on this well meaning sub-forum.

tomtontom

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Taking discussions offline will actually be detrimental to working together.

You are a stranger - you may or may not be qualified to give advice... the same applies to all members.

In conducting consultations in private you remove the ability for peers to comment on your assertions... It will only be your advice and personal opinion. That removes the more rounded 'every man' input that is often useful.

As to employers reading forums - tell us something we don't know... that is why we encourage people to anonymise their posts... It is a simple process.

You treat some here as if they are beneath you and that only you are able to add value to the discussions... That, and your digs at some members, is worrying coming from a self proclaimed philanthropist and legal professional.

Your intentions may be entirely philanthropic or you might be a raving narcissist scouring the net for suckers. That is why I am uncomfortable with taking discussions out of view.

I just feel that some people who come here are vulnerable and may need a balanced view of the 'many' rather than the view of one.

Excellent points made Tiddlywinks, especially about the way others are spoken to - to the point but very true. Said poster fails to realise there are others with equal or more experience, and even those with little or no professional experience can all offer valid contributions.

wapow

Aaaah I see what he means now! T'ing = Thanking! Hes right there is a culture of people who stick together and thank each others posts but if youre not part of that "group" its doubtful you'll be thanked. Am I opening up a can of worms? Jus sayin. It exists.

tomtontom

wapow wrote: »

Aaaah I see what he means now! T'ing = Thanking! Hes right there is a culture of people who stick together and thank each others posts but if youre not part of that "group" its doubtful you'll be thanked. Am I opening up a can of worms? Jus sayin. It exists.

Thank you, I honestly didn't realise. If it helps, I am a serial thanker, if I agree with someone they'll get a Thanks, irrespective of who they are

PHILANTHROPIST

tomtontom wrote: »

Excellent points made Tiddly, especially about the way others are spoken to - to the point but very true. Said poster fails to realise there are others with equal or more experience, and even those with little or no professional experience can all offer valid contributions.

Tom - I refer to your two most recent posts. With respect you are wrong on two counts :

1) Re the second sentence in your post as quoted above. Again, and apologies if I sound like a scratched record .... I (in part) agree with your words. However, to aver that I "fail to realise" other members, or in effect show a lack of respect to others, is both unfounded and based on some of your recent posts is clearly a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". I respect some of your input Tom, but some of your input is IMHO rather childish, disproportionately negative and out of context. It is rather disappointing that you have elected to behave in this manner.
2) Wapow deserves thanks for his pragmatic comments. His definition of T'ing, a matter which is clearly vexing Tom and others, is however, wrong. It is not "T(hank)ing ...... Tom, on this sub-forum, you and your mates (or possible AE's) appear for whatever reason to exhibit some, and on occasions many, of the traits ... of T(roll)ing. Such mannerisms can ruin many good forums, which MSE is. Let's keep it that way please.

Tom, if you so desire please kindly PM me and allow me to allay you and your mates apparent concerns in a more appropriate and confidential manner.

If I do not hear from you via PM then I will re-focus my efforts on helping other members. We are an inclusive society, and I hope that you will also continue to provide some constructive input.

If bringing this tangential debate to an abrupt end disappoints you and others, then so be it.

wapow

T'ing is Thanking! Not Trolling! Haha!

PHILANTHROPIST

wapow wrote: »

T'ing is Thanking! Not Trolling! Haha!

Trolling is trolling ... allegedly

Tiddlywinks

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Taking discussions offline will actually be detrimental to working together. - Agree. I would only generally suggest such an option if it appears that the OP may be about to name and shame the accused. In this instance I did not instruct the OP. I was seeking to protect the OP. To PM was their choice , i.e. it was a legitimate "take it or leave it" option.

You are a stranger - you may or may not be qualified to give advice... the same applies to all members. - Agree ; we are all strangers. My posts, which are principally made on this sub-forum, are generally well received and are based on sound legal training. If you or others want to know my qualifications I will be glad to share them with you and vice versa. .. albeit via a PM !

In conducting consultations in private you remove the ability for peers to comment on your assertions... It will only be your advice and personal opinion. That removes the more rounded 'every man' input that is often useful. - I agree, but please keep matters into context. Out of how many posts have I suggested a PM option to a member ; less than 3-4 !? , and only then because of the rationale explained previously, with which you are entitled to disagree Tiddly. For the vast majority of threads (i.e say > 95% plus) I wholeheartedly agree with you that the open forum is the only option.

As to employers reading forums - tell us something we don't know... that is why we encourage people to anonymise their posts... It is a simple process. - At least you in part agree with "me" on one point Tiddly. You thus should understand why I was concerned re the OP's thread. The content was not particularly "anonymous"; it most likely referred to one of 3-4 employers, and most likely one in particular.

You treat some here as if they are beneath you and that only you are able to add value to the discussions... That, and your digs at some members, is worrying coming from a self proclaimed philanthropist and legal professional. - This is a derogatory and unfounded accusation and comes across as somewhat disturbing T'ing behaviour.

Your intentions may be entirely philanthropic or you might be a raving narcissist scouring the net for suckers. That is why I am uncomfortable with taking discussions out of view. - Gee, with respect you now appear to be getting rather carried away. Your suspicions are out of context. You are even inferring that I may be seeking to make personal gain from the forum. Again, if it may assist, you and others are welcome to PM me and I will happily demonstrate that I am not looking for an ego boost, to make money, or to attract "suckers". I am here to help, as I hope you are. It would be unwise to publish any of my details on the forum and nor should I. We all have a right to privacy and if and when I am able to satisfactorily allay your (and Tom and others) concerns then I trust that you would then of course rightfully respect my privacy.

I just feel that some people who come here are vulnerable and may need a balanced view of the 'many' rather than the view of one. - Again I agree and that, with less than 3-4 legitimate exceptions, is exactly what I have done, and will continue to do on this well meaning sub-forum.

I shall be brief...

I am not a troll.

I am not a friend (or foe) of Tom - this is not a playground.

I have no wish to check your credentials.

I have no wish to PM you.

Finally, thank you for speaking for everyone on MSE - however, I must have missed the memo that notified us of your promotion through the ranks... I was under the impression that we were all equal!

PHILANTHROPIST

Re above quote.

I shall be brief ... you always are Tiddly

I am not a troll ....well you and T Tom have sure being giving a damned good impression of one !

I am not a friend (or foe) of Tom - ......... "this is not a playground" .... agree, re latter

I have no wish to check your credentials .... OK. I did not think you would wish to.

I have no wish to PM you ....... Thank you.

Finally, thank you for speaking for everyone on MSE - however, I must have missed the memo that notified us of your promotion through the ranks... I was under the impression that we were all equal! ..... Yes , we are. We just have different opinions. Which so long as they are constructive and accurate they will of course be welcomed by our fellow equals.

Anyhow Tiddly, glad we can end this utterly bizarre thread with a modicum of common ground between us. If the OP ever re-appears then they can pick up where left things were left ...... some 20 posts back.