Request for comment: Collapse of the U. S. A.

[mockney piers]

I think we've sussed out who new nexus is, UDT I'm not so sure.

It could be good cop bad cop, but I don't think it is he, and though there's whirrs of old posters about UDT, he's not revealing his tells if that's the case.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are surprisingly few people who use the name

> 'Hugo' to refer to me. Of those few you'll find in

> a search, I know that several of them are the same

> person, so that does somewhat limit the options

> for UDT's other incarnations if he has them.

>

> However, New Nexus only ever rarely refers to me

> with some distaste as 'Huguenot' so either it's

> someone else or part of an extraordinarily ornate

> alter ego.

Economic commentator, political commentator, sleuth and now psychologist.

Here?s a new name for you, Jack as in,

?Jack of all trades and master of none?

Ho no he didn?t, Ho yea he did.

[Huguenot]

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with you Mockers, in fact I think you have them the other way round.

The use of 'Hugo' as a term of address only highlights one person who also combines that with habitual Latin board-veteran phrases. Couple that with the age and other references and I think UDT is pretty much a dead-cert.

New Nexus has all sorts of strange habits - for example 90% of their posts start with quoting someone else. Something that I can't find anyone else doing to the same degree unless you go back to the early days of Snorky. I'm surprised if it's Snorky though, the subject matter matches, but Nexus seems a little bit too defensive.

The only other person I thought Nexus might be with all this Americ-awe was Rick Channing.

[ibilly99]

I have it on good authority that Snorky is Richard Bach

[nashoi]

Huguenot, don't some of the ideas on this thread seem rather familiar?

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with you Mockers, in

> fact I think you have them the other way round.

>

> The use of 'Hugo' as a term of address only

> highlights one person who also combines that with

> habitual Latin board-veteran phrases. Couple that

> with the age and other references and I think UDT

> is pretty much a dead-cert.

>

> New Nexus has all sorts of strange habits - for

> example 90% of their posts start with quoting

> someone else. Something that I can't find anyone

> else doing to the same degree unless you go back

> to the early days of Snorky. I'm surprised if it's

> Snorky though, the subject matter matches, but

> Nexus seems a little bit too defensive.

>

> The only other person I thought Nexus might be

> with all this Americ-awe was Rick Channing.

You may want to go back over some of my posting, I think you may have your details confused.

Or maybe it was Mea culpa

[Undisputedtruth]

I'm not Nexus or Huguenot.

Straferjack is up to his old tricks again, accusing those, who doesn't fit in with his political views, as someone else.

There are a number of EDF members that have seen me in person.

[katie1997]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you have an undisputed relative on here by any

> chance?

Me to NN - Page 2

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone convinced that nexus and udt are not the

> same person?

Page 30000 or whatever....

[Huguenot]

I'm not confused Nexus - out of your 140 posts, well over a hundred start with quoting someone else. That's all I said, and you can count them yourself.

I know what you're saying nashoi, particularly the 'fiat currency' from Nexus is all very red-eye. I just think the first post in this thread is toe-curling, bicep flexing Tom Clancy. It doesn't seem so monocular, and neither does the habitual quoting.

[Undisputedtruth]

Go away Katie, you know full well I'm not New Nexus. In fact I shall speak to Laddy Muck about you.

[mockney piers]

Quite NN

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,729998,735065#msg-735065

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,729998,735224#msg-735224

At which point, huguenot, you thought it was UDT, but your attribution was wrong.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,729998,735240#msg-735240

So I'm going with my instincts on this.

UDTs words mean may be going back to my original gut instinct about who he is, despite some claims elsewhere to the contrary.

Oooooh, this is all so coded and cliquey. You see NN & UDT, this is all it takes to be in the clique, just a bit of forum eerience, there never was any illuminati apron or trowel thing going on.

[Huguenot]

Additionally, Nexus hasn't got a clue how to use apostrophes.

After the last UDT post I know exactly who UDT is ;-), the only question is whether Rick Channing could get through 17 pages without using the word 'butthurt'.

[mockney piers]

I think nexus has an inconsistent attempt at persona going on with the poor gammar, in a sort of snorky-richardbach fashion.

[Frankito]

Exposed.... Aaaahhha...! >:D

[New Nexus]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite NN

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,729998,735065#msg-735065

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,729998,735224#msg-735224

>

> At which point, huguenot, you thought it was UDT,

> but your attribution was wrong. that it be

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,729998,735240#msg-735240

>

> So I'm going with my instincts on this.

> UDTs words mean may be going back to my original

> gut instinct about who he is, despite some claims

> elsewhere to the contrary.

>

>

> Oooooh, this is all so coded and cliquey. You see

> NN & UDT, this is all it takes to be in the

> clique, just a bit of forum eerience, there never

> was any illuminati apron or trowel thing going on.

[katie1997]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Go away Katie, you know full well I'm not New

> Nexus. In fact I shall speak to Laddy Muck about

> you.

UDT - I only said what I thought, however, please accept my sincere apologies if you aren't also the poster NN.

As an aside, I don't quite see what Laddy Muck has to do with the price of jam but at least it made me smile.

[Undisputedtruth]

Katie, you know we met at Laddy Muck's Birthday drinks and your assertion to say I was NN was less than honest.

@Hugo - I'm not Rick Channing either.

[katie1997]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Katie, you know we met at Laddy Muck's Birthday

> drinks and your assertion to say I was NN was less

> than honest.

I was being perfectly honest. You have the same posting style as NN - iin my opinion. Again, apologies to you (both) if I'm mistaken. Meeting someone in person doesn't prove anything either.

> @Hugo - I'm not Rick Channing either.

That was patently obvious.

[Undisputedtruth]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I was being perfectly honest. You have the same

> posting style as NN - iin my opinion. Again,

> apologies to you (both) if I'm mistaken. Meeting

> someone in person doesn't prove anything either.

I disagree. It just seems to me that a group of people can't win their arguments fairly so thay just try to get the opposition banned by mixing them up with previous banned members. I think this behaviour is wrong. It's dishonest and goes against the forum's t&c.

[StraferJack]

I haven't seen anyone try and get anyone banned

Those is your words udt

Like Katie I see a similarity in two posters logic. So I merely asked if others thought the same. I couldn't care less if you are or aren't. but I'm certainly not trying to get you banned. Or nexus for that matter

But accuse away

[Undisputedtruth]

Strangely enough, Straferjack, in another thread you thought I was mikecg. Another banned member.

[Voyageur]

Wow - this is like a masked ball!

http://www.africanart.org/uploads/slides/thumbnails/10.jpg

[New Nexus]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > I was being perfectly honest. You have the same

> > posting style as NN - iin my opinion. Again,

> > apologies to you (both) if I'm mistaken.

> Meeting

> > someone in person doesn't prove anything either.

>

>

> I disagree. It just seems to me that a group of

> people can't win their arguments fairly so thay

> just try to get the opposition banned by mixing

> them up with previous banned members. I think this

> behaviour is wrong. It's dishonest and goes

> against the forum's t&c.

It is called guilt by association.

Has anyone seen The Crucible lately?

I plead the 5th

[katie1997]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Strangely enough, Straferjack, in another thread

> you thought I was mikecg. Another banned member.

New nexus is not a banned member. This thread has nothing to do with the one in the DR, haven't you moved on from that by now? No-one is trying to get anyone banned, just commenting on how similar your posts are and apologies have been given for any offence caused if not.

The forum is a boring place if all views are the same but ....this thread....awful.

As SJ said, accuse away...

.... and pass the butter please. Someone.

[Undisputedtruth]

Voyageur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow - this is like a masked ball!

>

> http://www.africanart.org/uploads/slides/thumbnail

> s/10.jpg

More like 'Cloaks and Daggers'