Bland Unsight Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Just googling and found this: Hi All I decided to join house price crash forum to give them a piece of my mind. It is basically a load of numpties going on about how house prices are much to expensive and they are going to crash down again blah blah blah. I put on a few threads and posts about how house prices are starting to accelerate and sales are looking good in a number of areas etc... etc... by post number 5 they have deleted every single post and thread that I have put up and now everything I say needs to be pre approved from a monitor. Very weird, obviously a forum for people who do not want to hear any alternative opinions Source: Landlord Zone > Forum > Take a Break - for the less serious > House Price Crash The poster on Landlord Zone posts under hech123, guided by the strategic and tactical flair you'd expect of a landlord he showed up here as, wait for it... hech123. Great work by the hpc Mods, as always. Another poster on the thread, andybenw, has this insight, (hence the tag): As a side note. HPC are quite scathing of mumsnet and their general consensus that over time house prices will only ever rise. I can't remember this site ever being mentioned but I think we would be 'Evil Rentiers' or suchlike. Welcome to the big time, andybenw, . Also Damocles outs himself, (easy sleuthing suggests he posts on Landlord Zone as Lawcruncher). I'm not too sure about a poster who begins their posting on a thread called Beware the Sword of Damocles, about a rather unpleasant landlord trick involving Section 21, and chooses the display name Damocles, an "obsequious courtier" (h/t Wiki), but we all got on this boat for different reasons, and to be fair Damocles appears to be a knowledgeable, diligent and voluminous poster over in the All about renting forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 From the posts I've read by Damocles on here and on here and on Landlordzone as Lawcruncher; although I didn't realise he may be the same poster. He seems very conversant with Landlord and Tenant law. His exposition of the law is clear and concise, I've not noticed any bias in his posts skewing his opinion in favour of or against either landlord or tenant. What exactly is your problem with his contributions to this forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 From the posts I've read by Damocles on here and on here and on Landlordzone as Lawcruncher; although I didn't realise he may be the same poster. He seems very conversant with Landlord and Tenant law. His exposition of the law is clear and concise, I've not noticed any bias in his posts skewing his opinion in favour of or against either landlord or tenant. What exactly is your problem with his contributions to this forum? ...to be fair Damocles appears to be a knowledgeable, diligent and voluminous poster over in the All about renting forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Just googling and found this: Source: Landlord Zone > Forum > Take a Break - for the less serious > House Price Crash The poster on Landlord Zone posts under hech123, guided by the strategic and tactical flair you'd expect of a landlord he showed up here as, wait for it... hech123. Great work by the hpc Mods, as always. Another poster on the thread, andybenw, has this insight, (hence the tag): As a side note. HPC are quite scathing of mumsnet and their general consensus that over time house prices will only ever rise. I can't remember this site ever being mentioned but I think we would be 'Evil Rentiers' or suchlike. Welcome to the big time, andybenw, . . . . +1 definitely great work by the Mods, that poster is essentially complaining that s/he wasn't allowed to intentionally troll this site unhindered. Just had a quick look through and Landlord Zone doesn't seem to have a single thread on the latest Basel proposals and the not-unlikely possibility of significantly increased risk weightings for buy-to-let, whereas we have 20+ pages and counting, so I'd hazard the reason it's not discussed much here is because it's very lightweight on the economics front (congratulations to Mums Net for placing higher ). Edited June 28, 2015 by Neverwhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 What exactly is your problem with his contributions to this forum? The forum rules do actually allow you to read my posts dispassionately before responding to them. What I've already written, you have simply restated. But as you ask, I do have some further thoughts If you actually read the Landlord Zone thread you see that Lawcruncher has an opinion about this. I only ever post, and not that often, in the "All About Renting" sub-forum. On the whole they do not like me. See for example from post 191 onwards in this thread: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/for...mocles/page-13 or this thread http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/for...ght-of-access/ The fact that he/she chooses to join in with a thread that characterises us (and therefore him/her also) as "numpties" without challenging it is a sub-text in and of itself. As usual you display a discouraging inclination to neither read nor think and an impressive inclination to take up the fight for landlords and buy-to-let investors. The latter is a sign of good character; as an ex-landlord it would be so easy for you just to forget the whole thing, count your gains and get on with your life. I am glad that you are better than that and welcome your continuing contributions. Everyone deserves a champion; some of us get the champion we deserve. Goodnight, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) I can now post in this forum (which I could not for a while) but not copy and paste a message I left on LLZ. Any suggestions, please? Edited August 20, 2015 by Damocles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Type it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) I can now post in this forum (which I could not for a while) but not copy and paste a message I left on LLZ. Any suggestions, please? Linky From the link (emphasis added): The name “Damocles” was suggested by the title of the thread I first contributed to. As simple as that. I did in fact disclose I was Lawcruncher back in January 2011 in post 211 of this this thread: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/for...mocles/page-15when I said: “The key posts in the thread are by me (Lawcruncher) and...” The only opinion I expressed about this site on LLZ is as quoted: “On the whole they do not like me.” Anything else is reading between the lines something that is not there. Just because I failed to say that you are not a load of numpties does not mean I think you are a load of numpties. The observation that on the whole you do not like me is not an unreasonable opinion to have formed given some of the observations on my contributions. I do though note that at least some appreciate them. Thank you. I am not and never have been a landlord. I am currently a tenant. All the opinions I express in this forum (and indeed in any other) are my opinion of what the law is without regard to who asks the question. The point is Damocles, reading between the lines is part of how to read a forum. Suggesting that something is not there because it involves reading between the lines is plain daft, (and if you can't see that it speaks to a rather underwhelming intellect at work, IMO). For example in the above you again construe yourself as not one of us, i.e. not really an hpc poster. You ought consider that just because you can't read subtext, it doesn't follow that you don't unwittingly author it. Anyway, I've no interest in driving you away from hpc, quite the contrary, but I remain struck by the manner in which you present yourself, and felt no need to keep that matter to myself. That's not how the hive mind works. Welcome back, from us. Edited August 20, 2015 by bland unsight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Whilst there is not necessarily a clear dividing line between the two, there is a difference between reading between the lines and reading into a text meaning which cannot reasonably be imputed to the author having regard to what he wrote. I made two observations on LLZ. The first was that I do not post often and that I restrict myself to "All About Renting". A plain statement of fact - no subtext. The second was that on the whole you do not like me. What can be extracted from that other than that that is the opinion I have formed? I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that you are struck by the manner in which I present myself. Would you care to expand on that please? You are of course quite right that I am not really an hpc poster. I just wandered into the forum one day while surfing and decided to contribute to the "All About Renting" sub-forum. I post there for exactly the same reasons as I post in all legal forums - to answer questions and give my opinions on various legal topics in the hope that people find it useful. I note the reference to the hive. Well, there are a good few with stings primed ready to repel boarders they disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm confused Damocles. It was clear in your choice of phrasing on LandlordZone - "they do not like me" - that you regard yourself as "not really an hpc poster". You've now openly stated that. So, having agreed that the reading of the subtext is essentially correct, it's hard to see why you also seem to be arguing that there is no such subtext? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm confused Damocles. It was clear in your choice of phrasing on LandlordZone - "they do not like me" - that you regard yourself as "not really an hpc poster". You've now openly stated that. So, having agreed that the reading of the subtext is essentially correct, it's hard to see why you also seem to be arguing that there is no such subtext? Just to get the quote right: On the whole they do not like me. To be honest I never thought of myself in terms of either being or not being an hpc poster. I simply stated my opinion of the case. There is no subtext. I meant what I said and said what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 It was only the "they" and the "me" that provided the subtext, which you've already agreed is correct. This conversation is a little odd to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 Just to get the quote right: On the whole they do not like me. To be honest I never thought of myself in terms of either being or not being an hpc poster. I simply stated my opinion of the case. There is no subtext. I meant what I said and said what I meant. Even a shopping list has subtext. I think that part of the present subtext is that you don't know what subtext is, (and that makes me a little uncertain about the calibre of your intellect and thus the quality of your legal advice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I think I know what a subtext is. I found the following definition at dictionary.com which accords with my understanding: 1. an underlying theme in a piece of writing 2. a message which is not stated directly but can be inferred Clearly here we are into the second definition. It may be my inferior intellect, but I am having difficulty seeing how a shopping list can have a message. It is of course quite possible to make Holmsian type deductions from a shopping list e.g. that the absent of meat indicates a vegetarian although the conclusion may be false because, perhaps, the freezer is full of meat. What is happening in this thread is not people finding hidden messages, but people extrapolating wildly from very small amounts of information: · I use the name Damocles here and Lawcruncher on LLZ. Simple explanation is that I choose a new name every time I join a forum. There is no particular reason I just do it and so do others. The suggestion, if I read correctly the subtext of "Damocles outs himself", is that I wanted to hide from users of hpc the fact that I posted as Lawcruncher on LLZ. If I have read the subtext incorrectly then perhaps someone can explain what "Damocles outs himself" means. · I have explained above why I chose the name Damocles. "I'm not too sure about a poster who begins their posting on a thread called Beware the Sword of Damocles, about a rather unpleasant landlord trick involving Section 21, and chooses the display name Damocles, an "obsequious courtier" (h/t Wiki), but we all got on this boat for different reasons, and to be fair Damocles appears to be a knowledgeable, diligent and voluminous poster over in the All about renting forum." I have to confess to be on uncertain ground with that as I am getting a mixed message. It seems that there is imputed to me some specific reason (possibly sinister?) for choosing the name Damocles. If not, why bother to bring the forum name into it at all? . Contributions suggesting I know what I am talking about are met with . Penetrating into the deep and subtle meaning of that is quite beyond my feeble intellect. · It is entirely possible that I fail to grasp the true meaning of what a subtext is. If I do, why should that cast doubt on my powers of legal analysis? If anything I would say it was an advantage as legal texts cannot be read according to some supposed hidden meaning*. In any event, which of us can say he has a grasp of everything? If (as is the case) I fail to understand precisely what the concept of voltage involves how can that affect my understanding (which is complete) of the doctrine of dependent relative revocation of wills. (Equally of course a failure to understand that doctrine does not prevent a full appreciation of what voltage entails.) *Not that that stops some asserting that clear statements in judgements actually mean the opposite of what they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 . Contributions suggesting I know what I am talking about are met with . Penetrating into the deep and subtle meaning of that is quite beyond my feeble intellect. Chill out, I'm just teasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 Where are you mates, Dammers? I can now post on hpc. The thread has developed: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/for...landlord-zone/ Anyone going to join in? Linky Come on ladies and gentlemen of LLZ - don't be shy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Chill out, I'm just teasing. It was Neverwhere who made the comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 It was Neverwhere who made the comment The comment was on both posts in tandem: as far as I could see sleepwello'nights post didn't seem to make any sense in context, that context being Bland's earlier post, and so my reaction to both together was huh? Hence the emoticon. It wasn't a comment on you at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damocles Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 The comment was on both posts in tandem: as far as I could see sleepwello'nights post didn't seem to make any sense in context, that context being Bland's earlier post, and so my reaction to both together was huh? Hence the emoticon. It wasn't a comment on you at all. Got it. Not a case of me misreading the subtext but of failing to spot the ambiguity. It just goes to show how posts can be misread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 How times change, who would have thought that something like this could come along (some posters on MSE are still basically saying it is all a media creation??) and knock the world economy (along with a few landlords no doubt) off it`s perch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.fc4f6a71f71b2db3894cdeace5105652.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.