'Internet trolls backing ex-cop' - Star

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=6589&start=1200

: They LIE when they say they are not haters!
Postby Rob1 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:15 pm

Do I interpret this correctly? Is this Mccann troll admitting that he acquired information about a supporter's company?

Pro-Gonzo hater Littlebore going to great lengths to stalk people.

They are following those who have done it before.  It's something some antis have done for ages and look where it got them. 

Statement on the utterly sickening stalking by that Littlebore wierdo a member of Myths has suffered:

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=6589&start=1200


Re: They LIE when they say they are not haters!
Postby Zuzu » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:25 pm

Littlebore has made people's flesh crawl ever since it was trolling the old Sky forums.

There will come a day when he will wish that he hadn't done that.  Karma.

Steve Marsden I have said for a long time that the way to get this information into people's living rooms nationally is to have a paid advertising campaign. Get news of the April 30th find and the Gaspar statement in ads in the mainstream media. In other words use the same vehicle being used to defend the McCanns against them. It's a simple idea. Imagine a quarter page ad in the daily mirror or a poster campaign in major cities in bus shelters or the London underground.
Yesterday at 11:33am · Like · 1



Yeah, right, I can just see the tabloids wanting to carry libellous garbage about 'Wayback machines' and the so-called 'Gaspar statement'.

OMG....I guess he must be for real?  

That sounds like a typical anti McCann fool. These people don't have even the most basic understanding of how this world works. They must be failures in their personal lives because they don't a good enough grasp of the way various aspects of society actually work to succeed.

They cannot understand the way the Police actually work, instead they imagine them googling and guessing and relying on dodgy translations and even dodgier pseudo science. Their knowledge of the way the world works is based largely on fictional TV shows.

Whoever this idiot is who thinks that Transport for London will stomach a campaign against the McCanns has not the slightest clue as to the size of the legal department which this organisation has and its real grasp of law. And everybody who has ever dealt with any transport company in any part of this country knows that the advice given by TfL lawyers is followed throughout the country.

As for these idiots raising enough to pay for a quarter page - that would be at least £5000 and could be a lot more. But one ad in one paper does not a campaign make. Newspaper ads need to become familiar to be effective.

Well said, Greenink.

They cannot understand the way the Police actually work, instead they imagine them googling and guessing and relying on dodgy translations and even dodgier pseudo science. Their knowledge of the way the world works is based largely on fictional TV shows.

It's astounding how many of them quote Sherlock Holmes, seemingly unaware that he wasn't a real person. And they all seem to lap up Columbo - a show I didn't really like, as it was so formulaic and predictable. Again, they seem to think Columbo was a documentary.

Very well said, Greenink.

We have been saying over and over that they do not understand how the real world works.  

That is why they believe any old rubbish that Poulton spouts about her documentary and  especially anything to do with the incompetent Amoral.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11966635/The-10-most-tedious-things-people-say-on-Twitter.html

THE TEN MOST TEDIOUS THINGS PEOPLE SAY ON TWITTER

1. “Methinks.” Prithee, sire, how didst thou enjoy thy sojourn from the 16th century?

2. “Source?” Rudely abrupt demand favoured by people who have contrived to buy a phone or laptop that offers no access to Google.

3. “Touched a nerve, have I?” Failsafe rejoinder to anyone patiently attempting to explain why what you’ve just said to them is cataclysmically dim.

4. “Red Tory.” Term of abuse applied by Cybernats and the Corbyn Faith Militant to everyone to the Right of Mao.

5. “Wow. Just wow.” Succinct way to advertise one’s moral superiority, invariably accompanied by a link to a headline, comment piece or tweet containing some form of transgression against Twitter political orthodoxy.

6. “How is this news?” Translation: “Why would a global news organisation report on a subject that doesn’t reflect my particular interests? And while we’re at it: why do supermarkets sell broccoli when they must surely know I don’t eat it? What is going on?”

7. “Simples.” Decisive argument-clincher employed by men unaware that The Inbetweeners invites its audience to laugh at Jay, not with him.

8. “Ad hom.” Abbreviated Latin term historically used to describe personal abuse; now used to describe criticism of a favoured political figure’s views.

9. “Hmm. Link?” Variation on “Source?”, usually followed by an expression of affront when the link is to an article behind a paywall.

10. “Yawn.” Yawn.



McCann-haters all love the 'touched a nerve' one.

"Simples" is the one that drives me mad. They are.

5. “Wow. Just wow.” Succinct way to advertise one’s moral superiority, invariably accompanied by a link to a headline, comment piece or tweet containing some form of transgression against Twitter political orthodoxy.

I've also seen them using that wince-making one to show how....er, hip, or something, they are.

1. “Methinks.” Prithee, sire, how didst thou enjoy thy sojourn from the 16th century?


A lot of the haters use 'methinks' when they're trying to be interlectool.



2. “Source?” Rudely abrupt demand favoured by people who have contrived to buy a phone or laptop that offers no access to Google.

Yes - the correct answer to that is, Check it yourself, it's not that difficult - unless you're too thick to use google?

I have a suspicion that I was the first one to use "Methinks" quite some time ago. I won't be using it again.

Sometimes, for a laugh, I use some odd and ancient words, and wait to see how long it will take them to pick them up and use them. It's never very long. Brenda often did this during her misbegotten days.

I think it is an attempt to make themselves appear to be erudite. But then we all learn something every day. I know I do.

I agree, ma petite, it is them trying to be erudite.  However, it's a good idea to learn to speak and use English properly, to spell correctly and to construct readable sentences before trying to impress readers with your knowledge.   Simples.  LL   

I think it is an attempt to make themselves appear to be erudite.

In which they fail miserably every time. Have you noticed how many haters don't know the difference between 'sprout' - the vegetable and what plants do? And 'spout'?

bb1 wrote:I think it is an attempt to make themselves appear to be erudite.

In which they fail miserably every time. Have you noticed how many haters don't know the difference between 'sprout' - the vegetable and what plants do? And 'spout'?

Bonny, a dictionary could be published with all the stupid errors they make and it would be maybe 10 volumes and need to be updated year on year well into the future. LL

bb1 wrote:I think it is an attempt to make themselves appear to be erudite.

In which they fail miserably every time. Have you noticed how many haters don't know the difference between 'sprout' - the vegetable and what plants do? And 'spout'?

"Decimate" springs to mind. Although I though it meant to cut or destroy into ten pieces. Thanks to LL for the actual origin. I shall be a bit more careful with that one in future.

Bought and Brought. Use of Apostrophes. Commas. Sentences. Paragraphs. Too many to mention. I have to say that I am stunned by how much I know about Grammar, having not had a particularly good education. But then I watch and learn, even to this day.

It's astounding how many haters don't know what common words and phrases mean, or can't spell simple, everyday words. I suspect their ignorance and poor education explains a lot - they boast about 'reading the police files', for instance.

They may well have 'read' them, but their poor comprehension of basic English means they don't actually understand what they are reading - not even the amateur, biased versions.

Of course, to many of them, 'reading' means watching Hoho's propaganda videos.

Their Posts must be littered with red underling. This should tell them something, but it doesn't appear to. And even a missing Comma alters the meaning of sentence.

I used to spend a lot of time hand writing letters, which sadly I no longer do, except to my sister who refuses to get a computer. But when I write to her these days, at least I have some conception of what I am doing, although she probably wouldn't notice anyway.

I can talk good Grammar, but I wasn't always able to write it. And I seriously did not know what to do with Inverted Commas, Commas and Full stops. But I do now because I watched and learned.

"Acquitted" Still remains of some shame to me because I always left out the C. I simply didn't know that it existed. So much for a Secondary Education. And I must have been asleep when they went into Nouns and Verbs, if they ever did. Not that these in themselves actually matter all that much. But it doesn't half help with French.

I remember my mother telling me she was very surprised at the low level of English taught in UK schools and amazed that no foreign languages were taught under the age of 11.   By the time she was 15 she was fluent in Austrian, English and French, with a working knowledge of Hungarian.  In most European schools, a second language - usually English or German - is taught from the age the child starts school;  the girl next door was able to chat to me in English at the age of 6, and now at 17 speaks it very well.   I taught my kids Austrian from an early age.   All three speak English, Austrian and French, daughter also speaks Korean and Japanese, eldest son Japanese, Korean and Mongolian, youngest son Arabic, Chinese, Italian, Greek and Norwegian.   I remember asking a language teacher friend why Brits usually only spoke English and he grinned and said "because there is a tradition left over from Colonial days that if you shout loud enough in English, the natives will understand!!"   LL

Sadly, in the case of the haters, the natives DON'T understand their own language, never mind anyone else's.

The English Secondary Education probably was somewhat lacking, LL. No chance of ever sitting GSEs. They just weren't available. Although it appears to have been better than what is offered by Comprehensives today. And the classes were of the same size in number of pupils.

I actually passed my Eleven Plus in The London County Council while I was in The Children's Home, but was not allowed to take up the offer to continue at the London School because my step mother wouldn't have it. I don't know why I failed the resit in Middlesex, perhaps because I was traumatised by being sent back "Home" to yet more abuse. But please don't feel sorry for me because I don't. I remain ever grateful to the Scottish Couple who looked after us in the Home, and taught me far more than Education ever could have done. They it was who taught me how to speak well. That has been worth so much more, despite the fact that I am often mocked for it. Oh, and the Knife and Fork thingy.

I only noticed the short falls when I was older. But I still managed to pass The Royal Navy Air Mechanic's Board which largely consisted of Mathematics. But then my father was a closet Mathematician. He just never realised how good he was, poor old bugger. But this is how I am able to lapse into London, Mouffy Cow when it suits me.

All in all, I have been very fortunate.

Can I add "end of" or "off" in the mix?