Good home wanted or "Lost, stolen or strayed"

Then why are you reading this merlot?
OK I'll rephrase
"All one does not know. . . . "

Maybe I'm watching it just to see how far you're going to flog go with it Soutra

Of course you knew who sent it to you, Soutra - that would have been displayed on the PM message.

All that seems to have been brought about by this thread is an atmosphere of paranoia and the usual claim of 'oh, it's so obvious'.
Not much point to it really.

Well I'm b----d if I can work out who it is , if others have then how do you know you are so certain. Or have you been pm'd to tell you.?

Well, there's that, POGS - and don't forget the FB group/s!

Not flogging anything merlot, what started as a piece of fun seems to be causing paranoia among some people. Another argument for the "Oh sh*t" button.
It seems if I post I am accused of "flogging" it and if I don't, as happened earlier this evening as I was otherwise engaged, I am accused of "lighting the blue touchpaper and retiring". Damned if I do and damned if I don't?
And it wasn't me who described another forum member as a "bootlicker".

But - when a pm comes in an email comes into your email inbox saying such and such poster has sent you a private message. And then the pm itself gives the name of the sender.

So how can you not know who sent it? Weird.

Oh. Soutra does know who sent it. So why not just say back to the sender that she sent it to the wrong GNr.

What a nasty way to go about things.

Says a lot about the original poster on this thread IMO.

And if a lot of nastiness does go with private messages, well, it makes you wonder if Gransnet is worth doing.

Thanks a bunch jingl, nice to have your support too.

Support for what? Causing trouble?

Sorry, Soutra, but I think that in the old days this thread would have been deleted by GNHQ on the grounds that private messages should remain private.

What trouble has Soutra caused Ana apart from a bit of harmless amusement at the expense of an anonymous Gransnetter? And the old days? Gransnet has been going for just under four years, I think, so what old days?

I've never been all that keen on the "Harmless amusement"at the expense of someone else. A bit too much like school playground cliques.

Exactly Ceesnan!

This thread really isnt very nice.

'Never put in a private letter anything you wouldn't want read out in court'

Good advice.

I think it is quite mischievous.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Nope. The more I have considered this thread the more I am convinced this is not harmless amusement.

It was evident the meaning behind this was to embarrass a fellow GN and make mischief between he/she and others who connected with the obvious post this thread eludes to.

This has also made a mockery of the pm facility if it is considered OK to quote verbatim something which was meant to be private, irrespective of whether that pm was of a personal nature or not, or indeed sent in error. Has this ever happened before, I am not aware of it in the 3 years I have been on GN.

I had a pm that was not particularly pleasant but I chose to ignore that person, I could have done the same as this and quoted her words but that would only be my getting revenge and creating issue after issue, as this has done.

If causing embarrassment wasn't the purpose then all it would have taken is a return pm to the sender saying it wasn't appreciated, bringing it to the attention of others has however served it's purpose hasn't it.

Really didn't want to say any more POGS, but the point was that this PM was not private as it had been sent to somebody else. I did PM the sender without a response as you suggested and no, there was no malice aforethought express or implied.

Soutra

I have read your posts back from the start and I have not seen a post from ***.

I apologise if I have read your last post incorrectly but are 'naming a poster' openly?

If I have got this all wrong then I unreservedly apologise to both you and * but if I have made a mistake perhaps if one poster misreads your post others will too so maybe best to qualify.

Can we please now
________________________________________________________. ?

I'm really struggling to follow the argument that the PM wasn't private as it had been sent to someone else?

Why was it necessary to give us a name?

This should never have been made an open thread, it should have been sorted out in private