Twitter news

I was reading some old threads from over 4 years ago the other night and TBs name was at the bottom on the list of moderators,he must also have admin status as well as I've seen him logged in as admin.

To stop speculation.
Mods can only see IP addresses if admin allows it, so it is at admin's discretion. TB is listed as a mod, and there was a post a few weeks ago where Jill said he was a mod.

To be fair.......... As to the psuedonyms I think he was referring to twitter. There was a lot of talk way back about this on twitter , and I distinctly remember one being a pro who was prolific on the hashtag who I will not name here. This is my take on it.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:He's always denied he's ever been admin or a mod (but most people suspected that he was), but he gave himself away when he mentioned that Philomena and MW were posting under other names.  He wouldn't know that obviously if he wasn't admin or a mod.

Perhaps that's what all the fighting is between him and SP (and he is so frightened of her) as she knows that he has everyone's IP addresses and she can make things very difficult for him if she chooses to.

Just a thought really, for what it's worth.

Yes, Tony has moderator status at the moment over there but of course he wouldn't be able to see the IP addresses of PM and MW (or anyone else) on other sites.

Freedom wrote: Yes, Tony has moderator status at the moment over there but of course he wouldn't be able to see the IP addresses of PM and MW (or anyone else) on other sites.  

unless they were passed on to him - or he was "allowed to trawl through them".

I don't go for that myself - we're talking about sites that he has nothing to do with.

Perhaps he will explain more (not here, thank you, Tony!) as to how he knows that Sonia's revelation is nothing more than MW and PM's sock identities and I'm also intrigued about the statement that Sonia's crew haven't been paid.

Let me make this absolutely plain.

The information that Sonia Poulton's claimed 'shock' is no more than the revelation that Michael Wright and Philomena McCann personally post on the internet under various usernames (whether Twitter, FB or elsewhere) comes to me only from an informant in Sonia Poulton's camp.

As does all the other information that I posted e.g about no-one having commissioned any film from her - and her not having submitted any draft film or script to any lawyers etc. etc.

T.B.

Ah, he's back and very fortunate that he's allowed a 'right to reply'.

Were they a 'paid' informant who gave you this information or just something you made up.

Oh, and why does the Sonia documentary worry you so much that for god knows how long, you have rubbished and discredited her (and persuaded others to do the same), at ever opportunity or in other words all the time. (very much what you do with this forum too - but can't keep away).

myositis wrote:Let me make this absolutely plain.

The information that Sonia Poulton's claimed 'shock' is no more than the revelation that Michael Wright and Philomena McCann personally post on the internet under various usernames (whether Twitter, FB or elsewhere) comes to me only from an informant in Sonia Poulton's camp.

As does all the other information that I posted e.g about no-one having commissioned any film from her - and her not having submitted any draft film or script to any lawyers etc. etc.

T.B.

Oh what games people play. Is there any need for this. Your 'informants' sometimes may not be what you think and you expect us to believe an 'informant'... you have been 'had' in the past. Do people really play such games regarding the disappearance of a child,...... 'camps and informants' how pathetic. Do we really need to spy on people. I really am sickened by all this. Why the need to call Sonia Poulton an Imposter a con artist and a fraud, what exactly has she done to you, and what is it you so object to. So she hasn't released her documentary yet, so what, what is the big deal.




You already told us this in your post on CMoMM Tony,

Well, I also know some stuff and I am divulging it here. Sonia Poulton may think she has a nice coterie of acolytes, but some of them are not the great fans of her that she thinks they are – and they talk!



I would be grateful if you would not post here again.

All about disinformation. Again. Coming on here and telling us some codswallop about an informant. Ridiculous.

Somebody is very agitated and anxious.

Although I'm trying to work out what stresses him the most...

The Smiths.

Sonia.

Playground Picture.

MMM.

Yep, my thoughts as well, we need a poll!

It's all a game to some people , who forget that at the heart of this is a child and several people getting away with God knows what

candyfloss wrote: I would be grateful if you would not post here again.

I am willing to abide by this but I also have a request for you.

Opinion, even robust opinion, and fair comment about people is one thing.

But on your forum there is a great deal of inaccurate information about me and some of it clearly libelous.

You'll recall that the original JusrAThoughtYouKnow forum was removed from the internet by the hosters because they had refused to remove inaccurate and libelous information about me.

Please now take immediate steps to remove all inaccurate and libelous information about me on your forum.

How do we know which bits they are?

myositis wrote:

candyfloss wrote: I would be grateful if you would not post here again.

I am willing to abide by this but I also have a request for you.

Opinion, even robust opinion, and fair comment about people is one thing.

But on your forum there is a great deal of inaccurate information about me and some of it clearly libelous.

You'll recall that the original JusrAThoughtYouKnow forum was removed from the internet by the hosters because they had refused to remove inaccurate and libelous information about me.

Please now take immediate steps to remove all inaccurate and libelous information about me on your forum.      

If you could tell me what is libellous then it will be removed. You do your fair share of posting things about this forum and myself and others that are not true, or twisted. Please send me a pm with what you perceive to be libellous. I will activate your pm for this for a few hours. I am sorry it has come to this Tony, I once admired you so much.

Freedom wrote:How do we know which bits they are?

Now that I have made a public and formal request, that now becomes a matter for you.

You are required to remove all libelous content about me and any information stated about me that you cannot substantiate.

This has crossed with Candyfloss's reply, Tony.

myositis wrote:

Freedom wrote:How do we know which bits they are?

Now that I have made a public and formal request, that now becomes a matter for you.

You are required to remove all libelous content about me and any information stated about me that you cannot substantiate.    

That is a silly remark to make, how can I find posts about you and what has been said. It is up to you to ask me to remove what you consider as libel - and how would I know what is or what isn't until you tell me. Please look at terms and conditions.

Don't let him bully you with all this hot air, threatening nonsense.

He just wants this forum shut down as he has no control or influence.

Heard it all now.

Don't worry, Andrew.

We're made of (relatively) strong stuff, we aren't frightened!

There is only one person who is extremely frightened, Freedom.

And that's blatantly obvious.

Formotion staff can read here anytime at all, they are welcome to, we have done nothing wrong. In fact our forum here is kept free of libel as much as possible, and he well knows how well it is run.

We know TB keeps record of everything, so he will surely have a record of these 'libellous' posts. Won't he?

I'm surprised that, if these posts exist, Tony didn't ask for them to be removed at the time.

He doesn't like it that it's well ran, for starters.

Not like the dogs dinner of a place (now) over the road, where he has to have multiple socks to reinforce an argument and all that nonsense.

There's nothing libellous here and he's in cuckoo land as usual. If there was then he would of memorised everything and be able to reel it off in 30 seconds flat.

Next we will be hearing that if we don't actually agree with TB's theories , it's classed as libellous.

You just get banned over there but of course he can't do that here.

Oh dear.

When the posts that Mr Bennett finds libellous have been dealt with to his satisfaction, perhaps the best course of action would be to refrain from ever mentioning this gentleman again and concentrating on the true victim - Madeleine McCann.

There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde

Unbelievable, some just cannot get over this forum being set up. Doubt there's any libel posts on anyone cause candyfloss and Freedom just wouldn't allow it. Candyfloss and Freedom played fair across the way by trying to let posters give their view, it wasn't allowed so set up here. Sticking to what they believe, TB still has his say here, to threaten. Asked nicely to not comment again, he should take heed IMO

Is there a reason why given the division that rather than allow him to stalk freely unnoticed that you simply expel him for good. .. Im certain its no less than he would do? After all this peace too!