Sent Item To Wrong Address

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:05

mrk1@1 said:
You know Mr G could just pick someone randomly out of this thread and finger them with the thread-linking business.

True, but would there not be evidence?

If bigjohn says it's not who we think it is, then there must be some info in the message that relates their OcUK username. Otherwise he would be able to make no such claim about the squealers identity.

If he does name and shame (which I think he should and hope he does) then he would have to back it up with proof.

mame · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:08

Hyper said:
The latest reply from him:

As you have confirmed you don't want the 30 pounds which I offered - which according to the above i didn't have to, i now consider this matter closed

I would reccomend seeking better legal advice in future, the free services provided by credit cards and home insurance, banks etc, they are normally untrained and unqualified people who don't know little if any detail quoted in legislation, as such they can end up costing you money and time, i know as i have been there and done that.

Please don't make any calls on my work number (which was called 3 times today), all calls are recorded on this number (as stated on the calls today) failure to comply with this request may lead to me filing a harrasment, and based on what has been posted on the web site link you sent, possibly a slander suit, if you do see fit to contact me regarding the above matter please ensure it is only by e-mail.

Alternatley you can contact my current, contact details available:
http://www.cordnerlewis.co.uk/

I now consider the matter closed with no monies payable by myself.

Thanks

Mr M Green

What do you think

It was Hyper who sent him the link to this thread. Ive been reading since day 1 and knew i had read that somewhere. I couldnt understand all the confusion as to how matt knew of this thread.

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:14

mame said:
It was Hyper who sent him the link to this thread. Ive been reading since day 1 and knew i had read that somewhere. I couldnt understand all the confusion as to how matt knew of this thread.

Except it wasn't.

This point was already raised (before bigjohn entered iirc) and according to hyper the link he's referring to is not OcUK or this thread.

Pretty stupid if it turns out otherwise.

mame · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:19

ok hyper, what does matt mean in that email? sounds like he is on about this thread.

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:23

mame said:
ok hyper, what does matt mean in that email? sounds like he is on about this thread.

Indeed it does, I hope not though.

Would be pretty dumb to grass yourself up.

Maybe hyper can clear it up before bigjohn does - did you send Mr G links to this thread?

Danger Phoenix · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:31

I am pretty sure Hyper confirmed somewhere in this thread that he didn't... this is the reason why I don't like stupidly long threads, lol!

SiriusB · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:33

Danger Phoenix said:
I am pretty sure Hyper confirmed somewhere in this thread that he didn't... this is the reason why I don't like stupidly long threads, lol!

He did. I remember reading the email and thinking "you sent the link!?!?!?!?!" then Hyper said he never sent any link.

Probably some idiot sent him a link via ebay and the guy has gotten confused as to who it came from.

Darg · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:51

Wow.. it's been an interesting weekend of developments. By far one of the most interesting threads of the year.

Explicit you're a hero.

Hyper I hope you win in the end and cost this s*** a lot in court costs.

Matt/Big John/Mr. G (Mr.T?) I don't understand how a grown man could rip off a kid like this and not feel guilty. I mean.. jesus.. if you're in a decent job then £120 is **** all to you. Just pay the kid for the card or send it back in working order to him. You're acting like a spoilt little child.

Nebzor · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:53

emailiscrap said:
For what it's worth, you've said it wasn't you and that's good enough for me (not that you'll give a toss anyway).
Just wanted to end the speculation as to whether or not it was you.

/kiss

I just find it hilarious that people instantly assume I linked him because I didn't jump on the moral bandwagon.

Anyway, Trading Standards got back to me and said that it's still a dodgy case, but they suggested that it should be taken to SCC if necessary.

G-MAN2004 · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:54

Bubo said:
You havn't also recently wrecked your dad's mother's sister's MR2 on your own private race track have you? Just checking like.

Haha

Just read the whole thread. Looking forward to Wednesday

Also, Explicit. Great posts.

mmj_uk · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:03

This is getting pretty boring now actually, if I was Hyper I would just cut contact ignore this thread for the duration of the 14 days, and then take it to a SCC.

I may well be wrong but I strongly suspect Benjarghmin knows our mr woods, like tinytim/mr woods he has gone too far out of his way to try and dissuade any further action.

If you are confident of your case, you will do your talking in court, this guy is using every trick in his book to try and prevent it going that far.

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:08

Benjarghmin said:
/kiss

I just find it hilarious that people instantly assume I linked him because I didn't jump on the moral bandwagon.

Anyway, Trading Standards got back to me and said that it's still a dodgy case, but they suggested that it should be taken to SCC if necessary.

When you go to such lengths as phoning Trading Standards to back you argument up it's understandable why you might be one of the first names people think of.

Nebzor · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:13

wedgie said:
When you go to such lengths as phoning Trading Standards to back you argument up it's understandable why you might be one of the first names people think of.

Yes, shoot me down for trying to help. You're a sad, sad man. I phoned Trading Standards because I was interested in what they have to say. Get over it

Legoman · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:14

Benjarghmin said:
Anyway, Trading Standards got back to me and said that it's still a dodgy case, but they suggested that it should be taken to SCC if necessary.

So it's clearly not a case of unsolicited goods as you've claimed all along?

Cuchulain · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:16

Benjarghmin said:
Yes, shoot me down for trying to help. You're a sad, sad man. I phoned Trading Standards because I was interested in what they have to say. Get over it

You weren't trying to help anyone, you only need to read the general tone of your posts from the beginning of the thread, the ONLY reason you phoned Trading Standards was in the hope that you'd have something to backup your completely uninformed opinion on the topic at hand.

Nebzor · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:17

Legoman said:
So it's clearly not a case of unsolicited goods as you've claimed all along?

I claimed at the beginning, yes. I then learned (mainly due to Explicit) that I wasn't wholly correct. Nor are you when you say it's "clearly not a case of", as he still said it was uncertain. As I've said before, believe what you will

Nebzor · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:18

Cuchulain said:
You weren't trying to help anyone, you only need to read the general tone of your posts from the beginning of the thread, the ONLY reason you phoned Trading Standards was in the hope that you'd have something to backup your completely uninformed opinion on the topic at hand.

I have no need to backup my opinion. My opinion was wrong, correct. Then I adjusted it, and it is fully justified without any intervention. Opinion isn't fact, and doesn't need to be justified whatsoever.

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:19

Benjarghmin said:
Yes, shoot me down for trying to help. You're a sad, sad man. I phoned Trading Standards because I was interested in what they have to say. Get over it

No personal attacks Fair enough.

I've given a reason why people might think it was you, that's all.

If you care to look back you will find I've already said I don't think it was you, I may even have been the first to actually say I don't think you did it!

Legoman · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:20

Benjarghmin said:
I have no need to backup my opinion. My opinion was wrong, correct. Then I adjusted it, and it is fully justified without any intervention. Opinion isn't fact, and doesn't need to be justified whatsoever.

You're trying to justify yourself with that reply :rolleyes:

wedgie · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:21

Cuchulain said:
You weren't trying to help anyone, you only need to read the general tone of your posts from the beginning of the thread, the ONLY reason you phoned Trading Standards was in the hope that you'd have something to backup your completely uninformed opinion on the topic at hand.

That's definately the impression I got.