Forum Topic

Ooops - car driver hits 82yo on Gunnersbury Lane

See below link for full account of incident:-http://www.actonw3.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident036.htm

Alex Dee ● 1711d37 Comments

Being the gentleman is still in a  "critical but stable" condition 11 days on and knowing what is likely coming below with your  "Ooops"i think you should consider a request to remove the posting. What if his condition took a turn for the worse after 80 posts down ?

Julian Pavey ● 1711d

Alex, regardless of why you might have started this thread, the title is beyond tasteless.

Andrew Jones ● 1711d

I agree with the other posters that you should remove this.  How would you like it if someone posted this way if it was a member of your family? This must be a stressful time for the family and the use of oops in the title is tasteless and unnecessary. If this is in response to the post last week then it’s sad to see people using other people’s suffering for point scoring.

Nora Watkins ● 1711d

Totally agree, the headline is appalling. Please delete asap.

Nick Jenkins ● 1710d

i agree Nora & others - using "ooops" about any injury (bike or car or otherwise related) is distasteful and more so the more serious the injury.this is in very bad taste..

Ceinwen Mailvaganam ● 1710d

Sorry to pile on Alex - I think you should request this thread is taken down.I do realise it is satire - Loraine Pemberton originally posted an "Ooops" thread about a serious accident involving a car and a cyclist.At the time many of us commented that it made light of the incident, it appeared she was taking enjoyment from the cyclist's injury and it was completely inappropriate.  Yes, she refused to accept this and yes, many of her supporters felt it was completely fine and attacked those who criticised it, so I understand why you've posted this title.However, it is still inappropriate and offensive.  We win the argument by pointing out how awful road accidents are for the people involved and their loved ones and not by stooping to their level. 

Ed Saper ● 1710d

Ed Saper suggested" I do realise it is satire - Loraine Pemberton originally posted an "Ooops" thread"So "Alex Dee" who'd never posted on the forum before, pops up out of nowhere and decides to post a "satire" on Loraine Pemberton's post ?Which you then need to explain to *them*, what their satire is actually all about, as well as to everybody else ? How strange !And its not as if these repeated requests to remove the thread, keeps it on the top of the page or anything either.Wasn't there a thread a while back, on a similar theme which attracted a lot of opprobrium at the      time. Now who was it started that thread and disappeared for a time immediately afterwards ?This old memory of mine. Maybe you can help ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1710d

Michael, it is not appropriate to use the word “Ooops” to describe a traffic incident where someone was hurt. While this may have been meant as satire, the context was not obvious - you needed to know the background - and without it, it is just as offensive as Loraine’s original post, which I doubt was the OP’s intention.

Ed Saper ● 1710d

Nice try Ed. I think Michaels got your number though

Maggie Dodge ● 1709d

Ed Saper" While this may have been meant as satire, the context was not obvious -- you needed to know the background "Exactly. As I said before this "Alex Dee" who'd never posted on the forum before, pops up out of nowhere and seems to know all the background. Otherwise it wouldn'thave been a *satire* would it ?  It would have simply been been *a remarkable coincidence* that a *new poster* pops up out of nowhere and decides to start a thread using a similar thread title to Loraine Pemberton. Now what are the chances of that happening ? You need to ask yourself.Anyway no doubt there will be plenty more postsfrom Alex in the future, so that these all nagging doubts can be safely laid to rest. michael adams     

Michael Adams ● 1709d

Simple, Michael. It's obviously Nora Watkins in yet another guise!

Robert Fish ● 1709d

There’s some odd socks about…

Russell Pearson ● 1709d

Doesn’t look like Alex (whoever Alex is, is going to ask for it to be removed).It’s tasteless for the reasons Julian mentioned in the very first reply to it.If no one replies, it will drop down off page 1 and get forgotten about.And yes, I know my posting this has brought it back to the top, but the previous post was only a few minutes ago, so I’m not really prolonging its presence in the top couple of threads for that long.That’s my last post in this thread, if everyone else restricts themselves to a maximum of one reply, it will have dropped of page 1 within 2 days.

Andrew Jones ● 1709d

Can I just say, if you’ve ever asked Neighbourhood net or whatever they’re called, to remove a thread, they move very slowly. If they bother to reply at all. Might be relevant

Maggie Dodge ● 1709d

Any guesses who the sick sock puppet is?

Steve Taylor ● 1709d

I agree its totally tasteless but i dont remember any human beings on here saying 'take it down' about the human being who was out and about and hit a car. You dont like the lights in your face dont shine them in the face of other fellow human beings. Good luck to the elderly human being and maybe the rest of us fellow human beings will remember this next time a human being gets injured whilst simply being out and about.

Tony Mansell ● 1707d

If you mean the other thread about Richmond Park,  then I asked multiple times for it to be removed.

Nora Watkins ● 1707d

“I dont remember any human beings on here saying 'take it down' about the human being who was out and about and hit a car.“Clearly you have a selective memory!

Steve Taylor ● 1707d

Nora, the only way a thread can be removed is if the OP requests it be done. Not sure why, but that is the protocol from the forum operator.

David Lesniak ● 1707d

I’m sure she doesn’t need lessons in how to sock eggs…

Russell Pearson ● 1707d

As I recall from the very distasteful original OP post, there was a whole spurious debate about the difference between whoops and oops. Perhaps those who took that line of defence will apply that logic to this post too.

Stewart Jones ● 1707d

No defence, oops means mishap of any kind.

Janice Evans ● 1707d

It seems to me that that's the kind of thing someone whose world is fuller of virtual reality than the reality of the serious consequences of real life problems especially to the elderly would think. Perhaps he or she should do a bit of research. I do hope the gentleman knocked down by the car recovers well.

Philippa Bond ● 1707d

Please stop this now Russell, it's really not funny any more.I am a real person and despite the gaslighting from MA,  I am also a woman who finds the fact you, and a few other men seem to be targeting me, quite unsettling now.  I'm happy to have a conversation or debate,  but you keep responding to my posts and seem to be trying to discredit me.I'm asking you politely to stop spreading this lie.

Nora Watkins ● 1707d

And this isn't really a mishap which is why this it isn't really appropriate to use it.  It's a shame the poster hasn't asked for it to be removed.

Nora Watkins ● 1707d

Some synonyms for mishap, blunders, mischances, diasaters, casualties.Of course we wish this man a full recovery.

Janice Evans ● 1707d

Take no umbrage, the jolly was at another’s expense. We are all simulacra…

Russell Pearson ● 1705d

Russell, I’m assuming that response was for me? Please be clear because I really would like to get your confirmation that this behaviour is going to stop. Why do your odd comments always follow my comments and in this case you used the term “she”? Please explain. I’m keen to know who this was aimed at if not me.

Nora Watkins ● 1705d

Nora, before you start slinging yet more accusations around, and making even more demands of people, perhaps you might care to have a quiet word with your good friend, Robert Fish ?quote:Topic: Car driver hits 82yo on Gunnersbury Lane Posted by: Robert FishDate/Time: 18/01/22 19:15:00" Simple, Michael. It's obviously Nora Watkins in yet another guise!"unquote:HTHmichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1705d

I hadn't noticed that comment, but Russell is quite creepily commenting just after my comments on multiple threads so I would like him to stop.  Despite your attempt to gaslight in our last communication by implying I might not be a woman after I suggested there might be some misogyny in play,  I am a woman and I don't have multiple accounts.    I'd like all the MEN who seem to be trolling me and accusing me of being a sock puppet to stop now please.  I'm a real person.  I'm happy to have a discussion,  but I find the need to discredit me and shut me down quite sad.

Nora Watkins ● 1705d

Nora, go easy on the paranoia. My post, as quoted  by Michael Adam, was poking fun at your antagonists. I suspect Russell's post was similarly tongue in cheek.

Robert Fish ● 1705d

Apologies - Michael Adams

Robert Fish ● 1705d

Robert,  I'm not being paranoid.  This "joke" has been ongoing on multiple threads and it has been exclusively by men and aimed at me personally.  It's trolling,  and I'm afraid I do feel there is a level of misogyny creeping in.It really saddens me to see people behaving this way.

Nora Watkins ● 1705d

Nora, my "joke" was certainly not aimed at you personally, nor, I suspect, was Russell's. You happen to have crossed swords with two other contributors known for their dogged intractability in their exchanges with men and women alike, and it's not necessarily misogyny that drives them, but rather sheer bloody-mindedness and a compulsion to have the last word..

Robert Fish ● 1705d

Russell has followed half a dozen of my comments on different threads with sock based "jokes".  My last interaction with Michael lead to him implying I might not even be a woman as though that would justify his behaviour and comments.  I find it all quite odd and I'm afraid I do feel it amounts to trolling.

Nora Watkins ● 1705d

Perhaps Russell may wish to clarify, but he seemed to me to be mocking the suggestion that you are a sock-puppet.

Robert Fish ● 1705d

Russell jumped on the suggestion after Michael Adams implied it.  He and Michael are the only one's who have continued with it across multiple threads.  It seems there might be some history that I'm not aware of. Or maybe Michael really is a woman as he suggested in a previous comment.

Nora Watkins ● 1705d