Re: Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. - the day the scales fell off my eyes

by Majic 16.12.09 12:15

Chinagirl wrote:Sorry, Majic - your post was made as I was typing mine on the same subject!

No problems, now we can say the question was asked twice for happyday

by aiyoyo 16.12.09 12:17

Majic wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:

Nope.

On the 3 Arguidos ?

Yes I was but never an active member.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 12:17

No I did not obtain Val/Photon/scrimas's etc. etc.'s consent to publishing her e-mail.

She has come on here with an alias and badgered me on a previous thread, see below.

Then when it suits her, she e-mails me and asks for a 'favour'. I then go further and speak well of her to Jill, who has had harassment and can't be sure who the harassment is coming from.

Val/Photon/scrimas et. etc. was devious in posting with another identity and then into the bargain badgers for a reply (which by the way I've already given elsewhere). The efforts of both sans-souci and Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. were in no way aimed to enlighten, they were meant, I know, to cause potential difficulties for the Madeleine Foundation.

If someone specifically asks for an e-mail not to be published, I would invariably accept that. This case, because of the deception by Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc., was the exception that proves the rule:

scrimas wrote:

Sorry to disappoint (as I'm sure it will) but you'll have to be satisfied with coincidence, which is actually the truth. Can you deal with that? Tony Bennett, himself, declared that the Foundation was an unincorporated association. Check out http://www.burness.co.uk/eMailshots/UnincorporatedAssociationsMarch09.pdf if you can't be bothered googling. Perhaps you should also consider Tara9's viewpoint, too. Just waiting for an answer. Is that OK with you?

++++++

jolie:

I was only asking as I thought it could be true. There's so much cloak and dagger stuff going on in the forums, you can't blame someone for wondering when she comes across two posters punching away at the same point on two different forums with two different names.

I haven't read anyone else posting on that particular point, so I was curious if you and he/she were the same person. My apologies if that offended you.

You posted the one message directed at Tony Bennett here two or three times and then bumped the thread again, and that caught my attention, too. I'm sure Tony Bennett will answer the points he wants to and bypass those he doesn't. After a couple of times asking, continuing to repeat a message, insisting on having an answer becomes badgering, imo.

scrimas:

Jolie - no offence taken and certainly no need for apologies. This board does seem to be one of high 'emotion'. It's not my intention to badger - but one has to wonder why Tony Bennett has chosen to overlook that post. I'm not expecting a reply now - his lack of response is answer enough, I think. Fortunately, for me, I'm not a member of the Foundation. Possibly he may take more notice if those questions were posed by a member.

by Guest 16.12.09 12:22

In what way would these questions have "caused potential difficulties for the foundation?"

by Majic 16.12.09 12:25

Mr Bennett, this is Vanessa doing what she does and has always done, playing off people against one another behind the curtain of anonymity. Even when they used their "socks" on the old 3 Arguidos site to manipulate members they used anonymous proxies so they could hide their real identities from the other moderators, specifically those that would take great exception to the manipulation.

It was attempted at one point to extract the knock list from the old database I believe in the hope that multiple socks tied to the one address would expose just how many times Brenda and colleagues had used such tactics to alter the course of threads, bait and switch members to ban them or created identities to access data on other sites.

Once it became clear that there was at a high level covert manipulation going on known only to the few the exercise became pointless, the findings of the data mining useless. That is the level that Brenda and colleagues operate at, they are not even trust worthy of the people they say they put trust in.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 12:32

Majic wrote:Mr Bennett, this is Vanessa doing what she does and has always done, playing off people against one another behind the curtain of anonymity. Even when they used their "socks" on the old 3 Arguidos site to manipulate members they used anonymous proxies so they could hide their real identities from the other moderators, specifically those that would take great exception to the manipulation.

It was attempted at one point to extract the knock list from the old database I believe in the hope that multiple socks tied to the one address would expose just how many times Brenda and colleagues had used such tactics to alter the course of threads, bait and switch members to ban them or created identities to access data on other sites.

Once it became clear that there was at a high level covert manipulation going on known only to the few the exercise became pointless, the findings of the data mining useless. That is the level that Brenda and colleagues operate at, they are not even trust worthy of the people they say they put trust in.

I have to say that evidence is mounting that they have acted just like that. I had genuinely thought that Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and Brenda Ryan were in this because they genuinely doubted the abduction claim of the McCanns and wanted the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come out.

Having viewed with horror the antics of those two plus Ambersuz/Susan Menez in recent weeks, I am driven to the conclusion that they are motivated by other agendas.

Insofar as you have shed light on the devious activities of Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and Brenda Ryan, I am grateful to you.

As I think will quite a few others.

But before I sign off, 'Majic', please be true to the strap-line on your own 'Chaos Raptors' blog:

because the truth matters

If that is truly your watchword, I look forward to the truth being exposed in a whole lot of areas.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 12:45

Majic wrote:Mr Bennett - a member on another forum has asked to highlight this:

For example, I edited and posted a photo of the McCann's house which you sent me - which I uploaded to my hosting account. As a consequence of that, I was (and still am) accused of taking that picture and being a stalker. Did you ever rectify that misconception??

The member has asked : can you ask Bennett why he was distributing a picture of the McCanns house and who took the picture please?

On the way back home from a conference up north, and as I recollect it this would be late 2007 or maybe early 2008, I stopped off in Rothley and took several photos around the village. At that time 3As had put out a request for photos relevant to Madeleine, or there was a thread to that effect. I e-mailed a few of these to Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and simply offered them to her and 3As if they wanted to use them.

I can't recall now if they were used by 3As, no doubt you or someone will tell me.

I've never actually used them myself.

by scampi 16.12.09 12:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Majic wrote:Mr Bennett, this is Vanessa doing what she does and has always done, playing off people against one another behind the curtain of anonymity. Even when they used their "socks" on the old 3 Arguidos site to manipulate members they used anonymous proxies so they could hide their real identities from the other moderators, specifically those that would take great exception to the manipulation.

It was attempted at one point to extract the knock list from the old database I believe in the hope that multiple socks tied to the one address would expose just how many times Brenda and colleagues had used such tactics to alter the course of threads, bait and switch members to ban them or created identities to access data on other sites.

Once it became clear that there was at a high level covert manipulation going on known only to the few the exercise became pointless, the findings of the data mining useless. That is the level that Brenda and colleagues operate at, they are not even trust worthy of the people they say they put trust in.
I have to say that evidence is mounting that they have acted just like that. I had genuinely thought that Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and Brenda Ryan were in this because they genuinely doubted the abduction claim of the McCanns and wanted the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come out.

Having viewed with horror the antics of those two plus Ambersuz/Susan Menez in recent weeks, I am driven to the conclusion that they are motivated by other agendas.

Insofar as you have shed light on the devious activities of Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and Brenda Ryan, I am grateful to you.

As I think will quite a few others.

But before I sign off, 'Majic', please be true to the strap-line on your own 'Chaos Raptors' blog:

because the truth matters

If that is truly your watchword, I look forward to the truth being exposed in a whole lot of areas.

Majic has indeed always behaved in an honourable way and always stood for the truth as did the ex mods and other ex 3A posters. They were vilified for trying to epose the truth behind admin at 3A and were discredited at every opportunity by Bren and Co.

Bren was herself behind many of these mind games with her use of socks to attack posters and through her abuse of posters pm accounts as Jill also has been made aware of.

Hopefully the full truth about their criminal activities in running the 3A's will now emerge.

by Guest 16.12.09 12:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Majic wrote:Mr Bennett - a member on another forum has asked to highlight this:

For example, I edited and posted a photo of the McCann's house which you sent me - which I uploaded to my hosting account. As a consequence of that, I was (and still am) accused of taking that picture and being a stalker. Did you ever rectify that misconception??

The member has asked : can you ask Bennett why he was distributing a picture of the McCanns house and who took the picture please?
On the way back home from a conference up north, and as I recollect it this would be late 2007 or maybe early 2008, I stopped off in Rothley and took several photos around the village. At that time 3As had put out a request for photos relevant to Madeleine, or there was a thread to that effect. I e-mailed a few of these to Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. and simply offered them to her and 3As if they wanted to use them.

I can't recall now if they were used by 3As, no doubt you or someone will tell me.

I've never actually used them myself.

What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?

by Finally 16.12.09 13:04

Hi

I honestly do not know who is the bad guys and girls and who isn't because I wasn't around or a part of this 3A stuff that appears to have happened. I hope that allows me to just read a post with an open mind rather than being biassed before I read the content due to the name of the poster.

Having said that and with no knowledge of whether Photon is a mischief maker or not, I do think that her request for the email to stay private should have been respected, Mr Bennett. When I read your post it felt a little like "right she has pissed me off and is of no use to me anymore so bugger her - it is payback time".

I am guessing that you felt a little hurt by her actions but in fairness, as I read it, her explanation of using a different name to come here and the reason she gave for repeating those questions was not unreasonable. She appears to have wanted a fresh start on this forum without all the nonsense that surrounded her on MM or 3A. That is not unreasonable and if she was a serial mischiefmaker by nature as some proclaim she would not have been able to help herself and Scrimas would soon have been raising eyebrows here allowing people to make their own judgement of her based upon her actions.

I just wonder if, in the future, somebody thinks they may have a piece of advice that could help you whether they would be so keen to send it to you in an email. After all, one step out of place and that email might well find its way onto a public forum for all and sundry to read regardless of whether the sender wishes it be shared with others or not.

Sorry to be a bore about this but I just wonder how Photon and Murat-fan must have been feeling with all those accusations about them having been made and yet no absoloute prooof to back them up.

I shall bugger off and stop nagging now kissykissy

Take care

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 13:15

Finally wrote:Having said that and with no knowledge of whether Photon is a mischief maker or not, I do think that her request for the email to stay private should have been respected, Mr Bennett.

Noted, this was an exception, games and tricks were being played by Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. - someone who at the same time was asking me for 'favours'.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 13:18

tyra wrote:What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?

I didn't have anything specific in mind, I have built up photo libraries in connection with campaigns I've been involved in, not by any means intending that every picture should be used.

by Guest 16.12.09 13:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?
I didn't have anything specific in mind, I have built up photo libraries in connection with campaigns I've been involved in, not by any means intending that every picture should be used.

You think it's appropriate for someone to photograph the house of a family of a missing child?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 13:42

tyra wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?
I didn't have anything specific in mind, I have built up photo libraries in connection with campaigns I've been involved in, not by any means intending that every picture should be used.

You think it's appropriate for someone to photograph the house of a family of a missing child?

Documentaries and TV news bulletins, not to mention the press and magazines galore, have shown the house, the interior of it and all members of the family on occasions too numerous to mention. Appropriate? Or not appropriate?

by Bea_Reasonable 16.12.09 13:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?
I didn't have anything specific in mind, I have built up photo libraries in connection with campaigns I've been involved in, not by any means intending that every picture should be used.

You think it's appropriate for someone to photograph the house of a family of a missing child?
Documentaries and TV news bulletins, not to mention the press and magazines galore, have shown the house, the interior of it and all members of the family on occasions too numerous to mention. Appropriate? Or not appropriate?

That would depend if they had permission to use it, or if the Mccanns had agreed they could.

It's rather different to someone with an axe to grind taking a snapshot for future use, isn't it?

by Majic 16.12.09 14:02

That is not unreasonable and if she was a serial mischiefmaker by nature as some proclaim she would not have been able to help herself and Scrimas would soon have been raising eyebrows here

She did, cutting snide comments, deliberate baiting of members, it had to be one of them.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 14:05

Finally wrote: She appears to have wanted a fresh start on this forum without all the nonsense that surrounded her on MM or 3A.

LOL!

by Bea_Reasonable 16.12.09 14:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Finally wrote: She appears to have wanted a fresh start on this forum without all the nonsense that surrounded her on MM or 3A.
LOL!

May I point out though, Photon, I have not one iota of sympathy for you. Not a jot of support. You and Bennett.........as far as I am concerened the joint entry to the limbo under a worm's belly olympics.

by Guest 16.12.09 14:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:What were you anticipating using them for, what could you possibly use a picture of their house for?
I didn't have anything specific mind, I have built up photo libraries connection with campaigns I've been involved , not by any means intending that every picture should be used.

You think it's appropriate for someone to photograph the house of a family of a missing child?
Documentaries and TV news bulletins, not to mention the press and magazines galore, have shown the house, the interior of it and all members of the family on occasions too numerous to mention. Appropriate? Or not appropriate?

You are not a documentary maker, nor are you a journalist, what's your point?

by flytrap 16.12.09 14:43

No he isn't but then maybe he is trying to gain experience as a stalker thumbsup

by Guest 16.12.09 14:46

I have thought long and hard and i still fail to see why anyone would want a photograph of the house where a family of a missing child live, I mean it's not like they are celebrities they are just a family, if anything it's quite sad, the family home and knowing that inside it will never be the same again, even if she was found alive now it would always be damaged, it's sort of creepy to want an image of that, imo anyway.

by DCB1 16.12.09 16:00

The exif data of the house photo has been posted on MM - 2/12/08 18.32.

by Guest 16.12.09 16:03

So either the 12th of feb or 2nd of dec depending on the way his camera records exif data, unfortunately mr bennett would seem to have been there a lot as he can't recall on which occasion he took the photographs.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 16:04

tyra wrote:So either the 12th of feb or 2nd of dec depending on the way his camera records exif data, unfortunately mr bennett would seem to have been there a lot as he can't recall on which occasion he took the photographs.

That's probably right, 2 December 2008. On the way back from a conference near Grantham.

by Bea_Reasonable 16.12.09 16:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:So either the 12th of feb or 2nd of dec depending on the way his camera records exif data, unfortunately mr bennett would seem to have been there a lot as he can't recall on which occasion he took the photographs.
That's probably right, 2 December 2008. On the way back from a conference near Grantham.

So, what was it you wanted the image for?

You never did say.