Good home wanted or "Lost, stolen or strayed"

This thread really isnt very nice.

Exactly Ceesnan!

I've never been all that keen on the "Harmless amusement"at the expense of someone else. A bit too much like school playground cliques.

What trouble has Soutra caused Ana apart from a bit of harmless amusement at the expense of an anonymous Gransnetter? And the old days? Gransnet has been going for just under four years, I think, so what old days?

Support for what? Causing trouble?

Sorry, Soutra, but I think that in the old days this thread would have been deleted by GNHQ on the grounds that private messages should remain private.

Thanks a bunch jingl, nice to have your support too.

Says a lot about the original poster on this thread IMO.

And if a lot of nastiness does go with private messages, well, it makes you wonder if Gransnet is worth doing.

Oh. Soutra does know who sent it. So why not just say back to the sender that she sent it to the wrong GNr.

What a nasty way to go about things.

But - when a pm comes in an email comes into your email inbox saying such and such poster has sent you a private message. And then the pm itself gives the name of the sender.

So how can you not know who sent it? Weird.

Not flogging anything merlot, what started as a piece of fun seems to be causing paranoia among some people. Another argument for the "Oh sh*t" button.
It seems if I post I am accused of "flogging" it and if I don't, as happened earlier this evening as I was otherwise engaged, I am accused of "lighting the blue touchpaper and retiring". Damned if I do and damned if I don't?
And it wasn't me who described another forum member as a "bootlicker".

Well, there's that, POGS - and don't forget the FB group/s!

Well I'm b----d if I can work out who it is , if others have then how do you know you are so certain. Or have you been pm'd to tell you.?

Of course you knew who sent it to you, Soutra - that would have been displayed on the PM message.

All that seems to have been brought about by this thread is an atmosphere of paranoia and the usual claim of 'oh, it's so obvious'.
Not much point to it really.

Maybe I'm watching it just to see how far you're going to flog go with it Soutra

Then why are you reading this merlot?
OK I'll rephrase
"All one does not know. . . . "

Who is 'we?' I don't think it's any of our business.

If the message was all that private, somebody should have been more careful who it was sent to.

Sorry, pressed too soon
I know who sent me the PM.and have now replied to her
She knows she sent it to me (I assume by mistake)
All we do not know is who it was intended for and who is being described to a third party as a "bootlicker."

The purple bar above the posts invites you to send a private message if you so wish. Surely the word 'private' means your message won't be displayed to all and sundry on the thread.

Why, then, should the person who inadvertently started "bootlickergate" 'fess up' when the message was supposed to be private in the first place?

Without the OP, we'd all be none the wiser.

What "in the know" crowd would that be? This is getting silly.

So this topic should have started by saying it was for the in_the_know crowd. How tedious.

OP has been busy this evening but I am still hopeful that the writer of the PM will fess up and enlighten us all as to who she considers a "bootlicker".
Not lighting the blue touch paper, just hoping she will have the decency to say Oops didn't mean that to happen.

I got it rosequartz but I was choosing to ignore it.

Thoroughly ....

Doesn't seem likely, when, neither will the OP - light the fuse and stand back seemed to be the thinking behind it!