The Statement of George Hutchinson

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben
    replied
    I never claimed you get special treatment.

    I'm not criticising the administration at all.

    I'm wondering why "creating a sock puppet" is any worse than anything you or I have been guilty of in the past. That's all. We've all "screwed up" at times, but I personally do not accept that any of Crystal's alleged transgressions entitle us to dismiss her earlier revelations or otherwise depict her a fraud. I know that the reverse is true. If you helped her, I appreciate that as I'm sure she does. I am fully aware of Crystal's credentials, but I personally sympathise with her reluctance to divulge them, given the relentless hostility. It is for the readership to decide whether they wish to value her contributions or not.
    Last edited by Ben; 05-20-2009, 05:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    You know Ben, you and crystal are perfect for each other. Neither one EVER accepts responsibility for what you do wrong and every time you get caught out you blame someone else as being worse than you as an excuse for your behavior.

    Oh and of course the "Now you are going to get me banned.." part 2 of the Ally gets special treatment. Jesus, will all you infants get a new act because that one is really tired.

    God forbid you accept the simple fact that Crystal screwed up. She screwed up, period. All she had to do was admit and say sorry and that would have been the end of it, but god no. Neither one of you can just man up and quit pointing the finger at everyone else as an excuse for what you do.

    And your attempting to deflect the blame to me AFTER I HELPED her really is just indicative that you really are pathetic and perfect for her.
    Last edited by Ally; 05-20-2009, 05:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    How's that for rude and caustic. Which isn't against any of the rules
    Well, therein lies the problem.

    Congratulations for illustrating my point and pissing on your own bonfire in the process.

    I mean, we get people like you hurling abuse at everybody all the time for years and years, despite exhibiting no knowledge whatsoever about the case and making an embarrassing prize tit of yourself when you pretend you do, and we have another individual who, according to you, created a sock puppet, never insulting anyone at any point.

    Who is the more sinning of the two?

    Hmmm?

    Think about it.

    Everyone else think about it too.

    And for pity's sake: "Whiny little bitch"..? "Infantile little crybabies..."

    Have you HEARD yourself recently? "Oooh, I'm Queen Mean! Please reassure me that it's cool to be mean!"

    Tha fact that I'm allowed to post is the same reason that you're allowed to post, and the same is true of Crystal.

    If you don't wish to take Crystal seriously, boo hoo. The people worth taking seriously do, because they possess proof that she did precisely as she claimed she did, and is a forensic document examiner, precisely as she claimed.

    Sure, you'll do your damnest to get me banned for this, and if you do, that'll amount to additional vindication of my observations.

    Bring on the hilarity,

    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 05-20-2009, 04:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Oh and you know usually I don't get involved in petty Ally gets special treatment whiny rants from infantile little crybabies, but go fck yourself Ben.

    You have been just as rude, just as caustic and just as much of an asshat as I have been over the years, including recently telling another poster that he deserved to be gassed and you are still here allowed to do your thing.

    Grow the fck up. The fact that Crystal is still here and allowed to post is pretty indicative that most things are allowed to slide on the boards, including you and your ceaseless ranting. So quit being such a whiny little btch and just accept the fact that your girlfriend has a credibility problem.

    How's that for rude and caustic. Which isn't against any of the rules. Creating Sock puppets however IS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Crystal posted on the boards under her sock Romford Rose. She created a fake persona intended solely to dupe the members of this board and dick with their heads. There was no other reason but to mislead, screw with and misinform.

    If you can't see how that has bearing on those of us who are now not willing to take her statements as to her identity at her say so, then all I have to say is you are either so far up her butt you can no longer get oxygen, or you have as much of a credibility problem at this point as she does.

    Crystal created a fake identity SOLELY to dick with the people on these boards. Her word is therefore suspect without proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Ben,

    It has everything to do with attitude. I think Crystal really never gave her full opinion on Hutch/Toppy, so it can't be about that, can it? It also has nothing to do with her association with you. I've always liked you (in a manly way), you know that. She's not a good person in my view. It's hard to overcome that perception, and I hold some responsibility for being less than forgiving.

    Cheers,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    If you could, you would tell that things developed because of certain attitudes and not because of any connection with you.
    Oh come on, Mike.

    I've never regarded you as a bad sort, but I think you know precisely why "things developed", and why Crystal suddenly became the grand 'ol enemy in the equation, and it has very little do with her position as stated in the 1911 thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    What does "hose" mean, in this context?

    And why are you bringing up a poster's conduct in the chatroom as though it was relevant to a conversation about a witness statement from 1888?

    The fact that you're seriously disputing the fact that a good portion of the hostility towards Crystal comes courtesy of her agreeing with and supporting me suggests very strongly that you aren't fully appraised of the full details. It might not be the reason that you've taken a dislike to her, but I'm afraid it's very much a reality. Some people have taken to hating her for not hating me - simple as. Whatever floats their boat, of course, but it has certainly occured.

    You argue that "creating sock puppets" is an unacceptable thing to do, but I ask you, how is that any less acceptable than engaging in a vitriolic hate war that culminates in me totally melting down on the other numpty, or for that matter, you being generally caustic and rude to pretty much every poster for feck knows how many years.

    When it comes to you, it's a case of "Oh, it's just Ally. She's like that. Don't rattle her cage!", but when it's Crystal, she's threatened with all sorts of punishment. Something's not right with that.
    Last edited by Ben; 05-20-2009, 03:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    I'm sure, incidentally, that she would have made a statement to certain posters were it not for the fact that those certain posters had already cultivated an unusual degree of bitterness towards her.
    How do you know this? You need to go back about 150 pages in the 1911 thread and really see what begat what. On second thought, you may not be able to "see". If you could, you would tell that things developed because of certain attitudes and not because of any connection with you. Frankly, I don't see a connection with you in this regard save as a supporter.

    Cheers,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Up until the time Crystal created a sock puppet, I had not said a single negative word to her and had chatted frequently with her in the chatroom. She still attempted to hose me in the chatroom.

    There is another person who I know treated Crystal as a friend and she attempted to hose that person also, going so far as to have extended conversations wiht them under her "disguise".

    Neither one of us had done a damn thing to her and quite frankly, you flatter yourself too much if you think she's disliked in anyway because of you.

    I am perfectly capable of disliking her for her own actions and her own lack of apparent ethics.

    And if you think creating sock puppets is an acceptable thing to do, purely for the purpose of dicking with members, then fine, you two really are perfect for each other.

    And quite frankly, as you well know, I was perfectly willing to give her a second chance until she proved herself to be completely unworthy of it and completely lacking in any kind of personal responsibility and strength of character.

    And if you knew all along she was Romford Rose, since you seem to believe she was only targetting those who had acted against her, you are just as much of a prat as she is.
    Last edited by Ally; 05-20-2009, 03:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Nope.

    None of that is "crap" at all.

    She was made the target of personal abuse purely on account of her friendship with me, and the fact that we agreed on several key particulars.

    I have irrefutable proof that she want to Kew precisely as she said she would. I have several images from her visit, including several of the statement itself, and so do a handful of other posters. They know the score here too. She doesn't have permission to post them on a public website. In fact, it is precisely because of the nature of internet message boards that archival institutions are so wary about releasing such images, or so I've learned recently.

    Again, if this doesn't satisfy you, fair enough, but it's more than a little unrealistic to expect her to divulge her full credentials when faced with such alarming and relentless hostility. I'm sure, incidentally, that she would have made a statement to certain posters were it not for the fact that those certain posters had already cultivated an unusual degree of bitterness towards her.

    When people offend or excessively irritate me, I do a good deal worse in terms of retaliation that create a sock puppet, as I'm sure you're fully aware, and I certainly don't apologise to them afterwards. Why then must Crystal be singled out for condemnation?
    Last edited by Ben; 05-20-2009, 03:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Archaic View Post
    Hey, guys, maybe I can help. Guess what I got for Christmas? A genuine vintage 1971 KRESKIN'S KRYSTAL, complete in the original box.

    Wow! Even though Kreskin was a fraud, I'm sure his Krystal (sp.) is the real McCoy. My expertise, professional though I may be, cannot compete with this little dandy. Try it out for us with the signatures. Please make sue there are some controls in place. We don't want any cheating.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Oh what a crock of crap. First of all, so far, there has been no verified proof Crystal went to Kew.

    Second, if people are heaping doubt or casting aspersions on her reliability and honesty, she damn well should have thought of that likely outcome before she invented a sock puppet and attempted to stir up even more sht on the Hutchinson thread.

    An action for which she has yet to apologize to the people in the chatroom she attempted to dupe and fool into saying crap in some pathetic "spy" attempt. Or whatever it was.

    If she doesn't have the basic decency to apologize to the people she attempted to screw over and hoodwink, who the hell does she or anyone else think she is that her word should be seen as good enough?

    A simple statement to certain posters, and you can forget me there, but a basic attempt at recognition that her attempting to trick them was wrong, would have gone a long way towards alleviating any suspicion about her or her intentions on the board, but she hasn't done it.

    She just pretends it never happened and expects everyone else to do likewise. Uh no. Not likely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    And as for the ridiculous aspersions cast in Crystal's direction.

    Yes, I know precisely what her credentials are. In addition to which, here's a clue - you cannot enter the conservation room and handle the original document as Crystal has done unless you are a professional in the field. I know for certain that she did precisely that, and I have pictorial evidence of her findings. So too do a number of other posters. They are fully in the picture as to the extent of Crystal's experience and professionalism.

    The truth is that the vast majority of decent people are behind Crystal's enlightening and proactive efforts.

    Another ugly and ever-present reality is that Crystal has been the subject of a great deal of personal abuse, both publicly and privately, and her only "crime" is her association with me. Parasitical efforts have been made to discourage Crystal from having anything to do with me, and in the cases where those efforts proved unsuccessful, she was made a target of what can only be described as a hate campaign, albeit of the "Damn her for not listening to me when I urged her to accept that Ben's a bastard and agree with me instead!" variety. The orchestrators were a blissfully limited bunch, but they are also distressingly vocal.

    Crystal had earlier expressed her intention to divulge her credentials to anyone who cared to contact her, but since the vitriol started, and the nasty insinuations about her motivations commenced, she grew less inclined to do that. Is anyone really surprised about that? She has a reputation to protect, not to mention a responsibility to her employers. I'd be just as discouraged if faced with the degree of hostility Crystal was subjected to, and all because she had the audacity to agree with Big Bad Ben.

    Well, if people wish to doubt her, go right ahead.

    I'll lose some sleep over it, but I can assure you that Crystal will lose none.

    Just don't expect me to stop referring to her as the experienced professional I know full well she is. Argue against it, and I'll argue back, and round and round we will go. Anyone fancy that? I do.

    I think most of us are aware of the truth of the matter.
    Last edited by Ben; 05-20-2009, 02:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by babybird67 View Post

    i dont understand this...havoc?.... I do not understand what has been misrepresented here either...
    Two words: Romford Rose.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X