Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[The Voice of Reason]

24 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes but to get out of addressing difficult questions some just say “ you are just trolling”

PK uses that a lot. Doesn’t seem to realize that people see through that

Just noticed he’s done it again in International News re Boris Johnson thread. He’s started using “PPT”  I’ve cottoned on this is his shorthand for “Piss Poor Trolling” which is his response to postings he doesn’t understand ( of which there is a lot)

 

[Steady Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I don't know what Rachel posts on Twitter.  I don't go there. I don't even know Rachel apart from on here and a zoom conversation we had once. I

So you basically have zero real life knowledge of her then?

[Steady Eddie]

37 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes but to get out of addressing difficult questions some just say “ you are just trolling”

PK uses that a lot. Doesn’t seem to realize that people see through that

Glover is clearly mental. Most people seem to be pointing out the fact that she’s obviously mental. She’s likely sat there now watching this thread with two pencils up her nose and a pair of big knickers on her head. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 minute ago, Steady Eddie said:

Glover is clearly mental. Most people seem to be pointing out the fact that she’s obviously mental. She’s likely sat there now watching this thread with two pencils up her nose and a pair of big knickers on her head. 

I can never remember is it libel or slander when some writes a defamatory statement about someone?

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Did you read her evidence to the PAC? Did you read what they did to her? How they stole her intellectual property and passed it off as their own, while at the same time, shutting her out? Do you think it is coindenece that both Ashford and Ewart have gone? Do you think that was just about the Ransom enquiry?

I don't know what Rachel posts on Twitter.  I don't go there. I don't even know Rachel apart from on here and a zoom conversation we had once. 

I do however know men and women who have experienced exactly the same treatment that Rachel was exposed to, and the majority behave exactly as Rachel behaved while all this was emerging. It was not to her credit but it's what she felt compelled to do. Taking the moral high ground is ALWAYS the best way but too many victims are too exhausted, too confused and in too much pain to even consider that. It's not just emotional, it's chemical.  

When it was all good. when Rachel thought she was going to be able to do something really good, for free to the country that she was born in and loved, something altruistic, chemicals and hormones are released. Seratonin, oxytocin, dopamine and norepinephrine are rushing through and it fells really good.

Then the rug was pulled

Then, instead of sitting back like a good girl and being respectful to the imposters in the field of genomics and it's effects on Covid tracking, instead she starting fighting back, and they didn't expect that.

She didn't waver. I couldn't look it was so awful to witness (soz Rachel) but she kept going like a fucking whining puppy dog. 

When an abusive relationship ends,  5% of people believe one party is the baddie and 5% of people believe the other is the baddy and 90% of the people don't give a shit. Rachel kept going until more and more people took one side or another.  She kept them talking, for good or bad...

At the same time she was experiencing so much shit behind the scenes and putting up with so much crap personally and professionally.

And why?

Because she wanted to do something she was really good at for the island. Yes, there are people who would take great pride in this honour and do something selfless at a time of great need and I believe Rachel is one of them.

Why didn't it happen?

Because she scared the shit out of the imposters. She called them out on their bullshit professionally but these lot aren't professionals, they run on ego, so telling them the truth didn't help them self review their own behaviour, they just did what they've always done - bullying/abusing - just as has gone on through civil service forever - just as happed to Dr Ransom. 

And funnily enough, the same people were involved in both cases.

And yet time after time, this comes up and it usually is from men, that she's a victim (yes, the she is actually - or more a survivor), that she's mad, doom monger, attention seeker, paranoid, martyr, yada yada - instead of just seeing the nose in front of their faces.

 Unless you have ever endured sustained bulling from and at the highest level.

If you have not been targeted, groomed, enticed, devalued, blamed,gaslit, stonewalled (and this the worst with Rachel begging to help and to start again without rancour, without charge - and she was completely and utterly stonewalled. if you have never been in a situation such as this then you will never understand.  If you have found yourself in a situation such as this then what I have written will be extremely familiar to you and will resonate deeply.

Because abusers all do the same things.  it's like they all subconsciously read the same handbook. So, when you know what those behaviour are you know how to spot that behaviour. And many people, spotted I hands down.

So, VoR, I do not believe my 'insight' is wrong on this occasion.

Rachel, I have made a lot of assumptions in the above.  I'm quite happy for you to tell me I am talking bollocks if you believe I am. 

Unsurprisingly, Steadie Eddie laughs. 

All of what you say is probably true. But, without breaching a confidence, I did suggest to her that she maintain the moral high ground, but when you have been subjected to what she has suffered  you can understand.

 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

Glover is clearly mental. Most people seem to be pointing out the fact that she’s obviously mental. She’s likely sat there now watching this thread with two pencils up her nose and a pair of big knickers on her head. 

You are an objectionable human being, simples. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I can never remember is it libel or slander when some writes a defamatory statement about someone?

Easy way, 's' is spoken therefore 'l' has to be written. 

[Steady Eddie]

4 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I can never remember is it libel or slander when some writes a defamatory statement about someone?

It’s arguably either. But I’ll repeat it. She clearly is a total mental case who gets off on seeking attention for herself. 

[HeliX]

9 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

It’s arguably either. But I’ll repeat it. She clearly is a total mental case who gets off on seeking attention for herself. 

If you were projecting any harder we could open a new cinema.

[Kopek]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

informal

to intentionally do or say something annoying or offensive in order to upset

I don't think that 'informal' is ever taken to mean 'trolling'???

[Steady Eddie]

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

If you were projecting any harder we could open a new cinema.

But once again it seems to be about what the wokes have to say here. Not about what anyone else has to say about sad attention seeking forum members trying to bask in past glories and justify their own behaviour. . 

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Did you read her evidence to the PAC? Did you read what they did to her? How they stole her intellectual property and passed it off as their own, while at the same time, shutting her out? Do you think it is coindenece that both Ashford and Ewart have gone? Do you think that was just about the Ransom enquiry?

I don't know what Rachel posts on Twitter.  I don't go there. I don't even know Rachel apart from on here and a zoom conversation we had once. 

I do however know men and women who have experienced exactly the same treatment that Rachel was exposed to, and the majority behave exactly as Rachel behaved while all this was emerging. It was not to her credit but it's what she felt compelled to do. Taking the moral high ground is ALWAYS the best way but too many victims are too exhausted, too confused and in too much pain to even consider that. It's not just emotional, it's chemical.  

When it was all good. when Rachel thought she was going to be able to do something really good, for free to the country that she was born in and loved, something altruistic, chemicals and hormones are released. Seratonin, oxytocin, dopamine and norepinephrine are rushing through and it fells really good.

Then the rug was pulled

Then, instead of sitting back like a good girl and being respectful to the imposters in the field of genomics and it's effects on Covid tracking, instead she starting fighting back, and they didn't expect that.

She didn't waver. I couldn't look it was so awful to witness (soz Rachel) but she kept going like a fucking whining puppy dog. 

When an abusive relationship ends,  5% of people believe one party is the baddie and 5% of people believe the other is the baddy and 90% of the people don't give a shit. Rachel kept going until more and more people took one side or another.  She kept them talking, for good or bad...

At the same time she was experiencing so much shit behind the scenes and putting up with so much crap personally and professionally.

And why?

Because she wanted to do something she was really good at for the island. Yes, there are people who would take great pride in this honour and do something selfless at a time of great need and I believe Rachel is one of them.

Why didn't it happen?

Because she scared the shit out of the imposters. She called them out on their bullshit professionally but these lot aren't professionals, they run on ego, so telling them the truth didn't help them self review their own behaviour, they just did what they've always done - bullying/abusing - just as has gone on through civil service forever - just as happed to Dr Ransom. 

And funnily enough, the same people were involved in both cases.

And yet time after time, this comes up and it usually is from men, that she's a victim (yes, the she is actually - or more a survivor), that she's mad, doom monger, attention seeker, paranoid, martyr, yada yada - instead of just seeing the nose in front of their faces.

 Unless you have ever endured sustained bulling from and at the highest level.

If you have not been targeted, groomed, enticed, devalued, blamed,gaslit, stonewalled (and this the worst with Rachel begging to help and to start again without rancour, without charge - and she was completely and utterly stonewalled. if you have never been in a situation such as this then you will never understand.  If you have found yourself in a situation such as this then what I have written will be extremely familiar to you and will resonate deeply.

Because abusers all do the same things.  it's like they all subconsciously read the same handbook. So, when you know what those behaviour are you know how to spot that behaviour. And many people, spotted I hands down.

So, VoR, I do not believe my 'insight' is wrong on this occasion.

Rachel, I have made a lot of assumptions in the above.  I'm quite happy for you to tell me I am talking bollocks if you believe I am. 

Rox,

Thanks for taking the time to write this and I know you will have done it all in good faith.

You do however paint her out to be some sort of saint with all this talk of selfless actions and altruism. I get the whining dog analogy.

But I am always wary of posts which include ( in your seventeenth paragraph I think) , “unless you haven’t been through this you can’t understand” as if that gives you some sort of moral advantage. I’ve never been raped but that doesn’t mean I can’t feel outrage for those who have.

All of us in our lives have , or perceive ourselves to have been, victims of a injustice . I myself hold a very big grudge about an employment situation I was placed in which I feel ( no I know) I was treated unfairly.

I could go on Twitter etc and rant about it having absolute belief I was screwed over. Or I could accept that it happened and move on or go through the appropriate channels.

From what I have read and heard though it does seem Dr Glover has largely been the architect of her own downfall, if indeed she has been downfallen. Her behavior in all this has been less than exemplary in the way she has conducted herself. Trial by Twitter.

 

[Steady Eddie]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

From what I have read and heard though it does seem Dr Glover has largely been the architect of her own downfall, if indeed she has been downfallen. Her behavior in all this has been less than exemplary in the way she has conducted herself. Trial by Twitter.

 

Agreed. 

[Kopek]

The best way to deal with a Troll, is to ignore them?

[The Voice of Reason]

OK

Now that we are “ living with Covid” and all that entails.

Would we have been better off, worse off  ( or neutral) if Dr Glover had been invited into the fold with her research, solutions etc.

Not forgetting that hindsight is a wonderful thing ( either way)