Ex-YUSU Campaigns Officer, Chris Etheridge, has launched a scathing attack on YUSU President Tim Ngwena and Welfare Officer Ben Humphrys. In a four-page statement, Etheridge attacks the two sabbs on a number of issues, accusing them of viewing the portering campaign as “toxic” to their own agendas, despite widespread student support.
Etheridge claims Humphrys told him as early as first term that he was not prepared to follow through with the portering campaign. “[The sabbatical officers] don’t wish to be associated with [the portering campaign] because it might damage their reputations or personal standing… in November, I was told by Ben Humphrys that he did not want to be associated with the campaign if it did not achieve its aims because it might damage his chances of re-election.”
The former Democracy and Services candidate is also behind posters around campus slating YUSU’s policy and culture. One poster calls the union “YUSUless” while another attacks the hypocrisy of the union nominating the portering protest for Best Campaign. The protest did eventually win at the YUSU awards; something Etheridge has since called “a disgrace”.
Speaking to Vision, Etheridge added that the portering protest in November was merely a publicity stunt to give the impression that YUSU was being proactive, “It was scheduled before the meeting that Tim and Ben were attending. They never thought it would achieve anything.”
Etheridge’s statement cites a Vision article from last term revealing that crime on campus had increased by 72% since the portering cuts. He says that Humphrys deliberately tried to cover up and mislead students with regards to these statistics. “Ben Humphrys argued that we should not publicise the fact that crime has gone up on campus because students would ‘get into a panic’.
“In last week’s Campaigns Committee Ben stated that bike theft doesn’t really count as crime. It’s as if the only crime which counts is violent crime.”
Humphrys has responded: “My position on portering has been firmly consistent in UGMs, committees and meetings across the year… it would be immoral to misrepresent an increase in bike theft as a threat to students’ personal safety on campus.
“As a former campaigns officer whose unsuccessful bid for Democracy and services officer did not even mention portering Chris’ comments seem disingenuous, his attacks deceptive and his motives overly political. I am, and have always been, fully committed to portering on campus, and I reject outright any claims that I’ve ever been anything but fully dedicated to York Students and their campaigns.”
YUSU President Tim Ngwena, along with Humphrys, is accused of having become too close to the university.
“Tim and Ben have used their position to foster a subservient relationship between YUSU and the University rather than operating through strong and active campaigning and standing up for students.”
While still Campaigns Officer, Etheridge says he nearly stood down from his post in protest of the sabbs’ inaction, and regrets not doing so. “Another damning indictment of YUSU’s failure in my opinion is the fact that the Union did not react until prompted by Derwent JCRC. Myself and Jason Rose did our best when we were allowed to, but we were held back by the sabbatical officers until very late on into the Autumn Term. The situation got so bad that at one point we both considered resigning from our posts but foolishly decided against this because we thought that we would be more effective campaigners while within YUSU.”
Ngwena’s response states: “The portering campaign was led by the campaigns officers with the support of myself and Ben. If the campaigns officers felt our actions were not sufficient, then I would have appreciated some honest professional words as fellow officers then, rather than an attack having left office. It’s a shame that even after all the support, resources and advice we offered, Chris Ethridge only has criticism for the work that we have done this year”
Ngwena and Humphrys have already faced serious criticism this year. Motions to censure both of them were propsed by long-time portering campaigner, Miles Layram, during the YUSU election campaign week last term. Etheridge says he could not second the motions while he was still an officer but that he “morally” supported them. Despite this, Ngwena was re-elected President and Humphrys was successful in his bid to become Academic Affairs Officer.
Brilliant. Well done to Chris Etheridge for this. I couldn’t agree more.
Where can I get a full copy of this 4 page statement?
Chris Etheridge. The fact that you got trounced by Dan Walker in this year’s D& S election should have been evidence enough that the students of York couldn’t c**p what you think about things like this.
Talk about no more broken promises. I’d rather have no more backstabbing ex officers with personal gripes and agendas.
Stop epicly failing. Such a pussy.
So yeah, this is a Vision exclusive because Nouse refused to use Etheridge’s stuff yeah…
I’ll go through things one by one shall I?
1 – Where is the evidence that Ben said these things to Chris? It seems to be the words of one, bitter, bitter man who still hasn’t accepted his election defeat.
2 – Chris attacks YUSUs “culture” – so why did he run for it?
3 – Chris put weeks and weeks into making massive cardboard monstrosities designed to promote his own agenda (which to me sounds to be exactly what he’s attacking) – why weren’t these present during his own YUSU Campaign?
4 – How can Chris claim to know what Tim and Ben were thinking. I was part of the protest and it was in no means just a photo opportunity.
5 – “Tim and Ben have used their position to foster a subservient relationship between YUSU and the University rather than operating through strong and active campaigning and standing up for students.” – You could not be further from the truth. Tim in particular has stood up for what we want, and, contrary to what people like Chris may believe, its difficult to get tangible results straight away. The impact of what Tim has successfully fought for will only show in a year or so. This is, again, as is the case with the WHOLE of this article – conjecture and represents poor journalism to portray these statements with any degree of credence.
6 – “The situation got so bad that at one point we both considered resigning from our posts but foolishly decided against this because we thought that we would be more effective campaigners while within YUSU” – or because you both wanted to run for YUSU positions? Remind me Chris – weren’t you going to run for Student Activities until you got scared of your competition?
I hope people reading this are intelligent enough to see through the farcical inaccuracies and baseless accusations.
@James Heath
I’m working on putting up a url of it or something
@John Major
I agree that it is rather hypocritical. This should have come out before the YUSU elections and Etheridge should have resigned if he wanted this to have any impact. However, I agree with the sentiment of what he is saying – i.e. YUSU just didn’t seem to care at all.
Firstly, I accept I lost my election campaign back in March; and I have no regret with regards to this situation. The campaign was tremendous fun and Dan Walker is a worthy winner. It is also worth noting that I had an MA in History and Politics lined up for next year at York anyway, so there is really no feeling of anger that I did not win and I have no personal agenda in giving these statements.
The motivation for making this information available to people is that I feel that YUSU is not being transparent in its campaigns. In dealing with the Portering Campaign YUSU has not been straight with people and it has actively misled people regarding crime statistics.
Furthermore, you can ask Ben as to whether he said these things or not.
With regards to the cardboard monstrosities which you refer to, there are several points I should make. Firstly, I did not have the idea of using massive cardboard structures during the Portering Campaign; but we did spend ages making banners for the Portering Campaign. I remember one particular night staying up til 5am making banners attached to wooden poles which you can see in pictures of the protest outside Heslington Hall. It’s also worth noting that we could not afford to simply leave large cardboard banners up around campus during the portering protest anyway because these resources were needed for a much longer period of time than those during the YUSU elections. As we all know, banners around campus get removed, and I knew that we couldn’t afford to lose the portering ones since they were needed for months rather than just a couple of weeks.
“Furthermore, you can ask Ben as to whether he said these things or not.”
Yes we can – but I think if he didn’t say them then putting them up in print saying he said them is dangerous ground…
And, to deal with the last few questions; I ran to join YUSU again because I wanted to try and alter the misleading culture that surrounds the Union.
Furthermore, with regards to my choice of running for D and S rather than SA, I changed because I felt my experience in dealing with money was stronger than my credentials for dealing with RAG (since I’ve never actually been involved with RAG and only ever run my own charity events independently).
Finally, I know lots of people will dislike these comments; but it is my view that transparency is a better policy than simply accepting the status quo and covering up failure. I am sorry if people reading this do not like it but sometimes you have to be prepared to rock the boat.
He definitely did say them. Ask him.
I totally agree with Martin Williams. Well done to Chris.
Interesting how almost everything which is being used to
“argue” back the other way is just personal abuse which
doesn’t even ATTEMPT to tackle the issues raised…
And surely if this were all about furthering his political
ambitions he’d have spoken up earlier or later, not in
the summer term, which is the furthest point from the
YUSU elections? And even if he HAD done this to coincide
with an election campaign, then so what? How about the
issue of whether he’s telling the truth or not? Which
he is. If you want verification of whether his quotes
are accurate, just asking the people who’ve been at the
campaigns committee meetings this year, and who’ve heard
it for themselves. Humphrys, in particular, has spun
against portering at every possible opportunity.
Yes, Chris should maybe have resigned at the time, and
yes, perhaps he should have tackled Tim more about it at
the time, too. But better late than never, and the things
he is saying needed to be said. It’s a courageous thing
for him to have done, because it was completely predictable
that the usual YUSU clique attack dogs would jump on him
with a load of personal abuse (see above) the second he
dared to cross them.
Well done, Chris. Keep it up.
Kind of agree with both sides. I don’t think we can really blame the sabbs for not wanting to go as far as they were mandated to possibly have to – i.e. protesting at open days. As Tim said, it wasn’t worth playing our trump cards over this when there are potentially more serious issues ahead. Antagonising the university administration over this issue could make negotiation on others harder.
On the other hand, it does rather belittle both UGMs and Union sub-committees if what they decide can ultimately be vetoed or not acted upon by its paid staff.
A four page dossier seems a little OTT, though…
This article really has opened my eyes, thank you Chris and thank you Dan.
Yes, before today, I thought that Chris Etheridge was a harmless, annoying guy with some sensationally incorrect ideas. Now my eyes have been opening and I realise that Etheridge is an exceptional idiot who can’t take responsibility for his own actions. A man who failed in a job that noone cares about and then failed in an election for another job that only a few people care about, and is now taking advantage of his abstract unpopularity to attack the people he worked with.
It is student politics. You need no qualifications to win a sabb election. That said, this years YUSU team handled the situation as best they could with a lot more information than Etheridge has.
Etheridge and his despicable sidekick Miles Leyram are now ruining the career possibilities of a team of people who did the best they could for a year, just because he’s bitter about his loss, really thinks he can win next year and takes student politics to seriously.
Until today I was civil to Etheridge. I’m sure he mistakenly considered me one of his few friends. Not anymore. Thank you for opening my eyes.
The real question is this:
What does PETER CAMPBELL think?
I’m glad the first Peter Campbell joke has appeared; they always make me laugh!
Tim and Ben really need to clear this up…
“I’d rather have no more backstabbing ex officers with personal gripes and agendas.”
By which you mean that you’d rather have an unaccountable student union where sabbatical officers (with whom you are most likely associated with) can do whatever they please without being subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Have you asked the rest of us if we’d want that?
Also, what ‘agenda’ is Chris supposed to have? What do you think he is trying to achieve here? I do not know if he is right or wrong, but I do know that he could have easily staid silent about it while congratulating himself about the YUSU award that this failed campaign got. The fact that he didn’t do that is evidence enough that something is not right.
To Eye Opening; I’ve made a large number of good friends at York and I’ve never been made to feel very unpopular or anything of the sort. I’m not sure how you can gauge my popularity merely on the basis of your own opinion.
Either way, I felt this issue was more important than my reputation; and so if you feel the need to be uncivil to me as a result then that’s your decision and not something that I will be concerned by. You go through life meeting people you do and don’t get on with and you just have to accept that.
I’m sorry you feel the way you do; but at least those who want to know the truth now have the opportunity.
Question for Chris Etheridge. Would you have launched this ‘scathing attack’ through the press upon the YUSU President and Welfare Officer had you been elected into YUSU? And please, no answers about ‘changing from within’.
The fact you tried to be elected into YUSU, only to fail and subsequently produce this criticism smacks of both hypocrisy and bitterness.
“By which you mean that you’d rather have an unaccountable student union where sabbatical officers (with whom you are most likely associated with) can do whatever they please without being subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Have you asked the rest of us if we’d want that?”
Firstly, why would I ask what you want? It’s my post, about what I want. Did you ask any of us before you posted your utter rubbish?
Secondly, it is very possible to have accountability, openness (insert other buzzwords) with loyalty and integrity. As an Officer of the Students’ Union at the time, and a candidate during the elections, Chris had ample time to raise these issues in the appropriate forums, and to get something done about them. He didn’t.
“Also, what ‘agenda’ is Chris supposed to have? What do you think he is trying to achieve here?”
1. Bitterness at losing his own election
2. Raising his profile for a second run at a sabbatical role next year (which he has openly commented is likely)
There’s two quite big reasons for a start.
Anon: Yes I would; and the No More Broken Promises Theme was inspired by my irritation at being held back during the Portering Campaign as well as a few other issues.
Irony Monster: Again, I am not bitter at losing in the elections. I have tremendous respect for Dan Walker and don’t mind losing to him at all. As I’ve said above, I already had an MA lined up and so my future in York was already secure.
Furthermore, myself and Jason did vent our frustrations in meetings with YUSU during our time in office. This brought us little or no progress and so I felt the issues needed to be brought into the open.
Oh and another point; if this really was intended to help me win a second sab election campaign, why would I do this at this time of year? Tactically it would be the worst time to do it since many people are leaving the university this summer and new students arrive next term unaware of the portering campaign.
I expected criticisms of this nature, but I genuinely felt that the lies and deception related to the portering campaign needed exposing.
Bulley, Flynn and a few others should be ashamed for their anonymous attacks against Etheridge.
I think they should be quite proud.
Do you know what, I couldn’t even be bothered to read this entire article nor the comments. I know for a fact and can say with 100% confidence that Ben Humphrys and Tim Ngwena are two of the most hardworking, dedicated sabbs who constantly have student interests at the forefront of their minds. Rising above the bickering for a moment here, I really don’t think any more needs to be said.
Supporter, even if Tim and Ben do have student interests at heart doesn’t mean they should never be questioned. It may be a pain for them to deal with this but if they have an adequate defence of their actions then they should be able to brush off this criticism with relative ease.
Also, it hardly sounds as if you’re coming at the issue with an open mind if you didn’t actually read the article or what any other people had to say.
@Supporter, Irony Monster, Anon, Eye Opening, John Major (and anybody I have left off this list)
The fact that none of you have put your real name on your posts means that they can be ignored as you don’t have the conviction to even admit to having posted it.
Furthermore, the fact that Chris has put his name to this article gives it massive weight compared to your anonymous comments.
Jog on Nathan. An argument is good if it has merit, it has nothing to do with whether the person advancing it anonymous!
Plus, Nathan is such a ridiculous name, if it did count, your post would be worth nothing.
Touché.
– A very adult response from someone who is almost certainly a YUSU bum.
Ben Humphrys, above:
“As a former campaigns officer whose unsuccessful bid for
Democracy and services officer did not even mention portering
Chris’ comments seem disingenuous, his attacks deceptive”.
This shows up Ben in SUCH a bad light. That sneaky, deniable
way of finding a way to bring up the fact that Chris came 2nd
for D and S. Saying that the claims are “deceptive” but without
pinpointing in what way. Like a squid throwing out a big self-
protecting cloud of formless black ink. No evidence or debate
or even any actual denial of the accusations. Just a big, vague
cloud of negativity – unlike Chris’s statements, which are very
clear and direct and factual. And the bit about how he has been
consistenly pro-portering could hardly be any less true.
I hope that when he has had a few days to think it all over, Ben
decides to enter into a mature discussion of these very serious
questions. His response is simply not good enough. Nor is Tim’s.
By the way, portering has been axed twice in the past, and both
times it got put back because the Union campaigned in a concerted
way. If a proper campaign had happened this time, then not only
would it have made a campaign victory more likely on portering but
it would have made attacks against other student services less,
not more, likely.
Not sure when I was brought involved in this argument (“Bulley, Flynn and a few others should be ashamed…”), but I’ll pitch in anyway.
@Bill Kettle – Tim & Ben were questioned and they were held to account. It was through two motions of censure, both of which failed.
I agree with some of the anonymous comments above that this does just seem to be a small minority trying to make a big deal out of something that most students either a, don’t care about, or b, don’t this is an issue. Chris has tried to ‘get the (so called) truth out’ plenty of times before now, and noone has batted an eyelid. The censure motions failed. I think he needs to calm down, I think everyone else needs to calm down, and I think we all need to remember that we’re all still students.
Why are we attacking each other? That’s what Lancasters for.
Get a sense of humour.
I’d describe myself as an advocate of YUSU rather than a bum.
But then, I’ve got a vocabulary larger than a 7 year old.
I agree with Chris. The YUSU team have failed and they do not get the criticism they deserve. Where are our porters? And what of that bloody fruit and veg stall while we’re at it?
Just thought I’d chip in and say that I love these comment like/dislike things! :D
Part of the problem is that this specific issue (the portering campaign) is being used to broach a range of other issues. Some are important, some petty, and most are anything but black and white. A lot of people simply didn’t get the sabbs they wanted and are rather bitter about it. I don’t think Chris himself is one of these people, but many of the anons clearly are. Tim and Ben won two consecutive elections, quite comfortably in fact, so there must be plenty of people who are happy with their work.
On a simple level, the portering campaign surely defined E&R’s year in office and ultimately, despite the efforts of many of those involved, it failed. I personally do not think that is a failure of E&R or Tim and Ben for that matter. I understand why it frustrates Chris E, but I reckon he should move on. It just wasn’t going to happen – regardless of how much support the sabbs offered. Tim and Ben are, as YUSU officers, mandated to endorse and support such campaigns, which they did. It is also their jobs to work full-time to make the student experience better in their respective roles. I’m not sure that either could’ve achieved much else if they had put portering front and centre. Not only would it have dominated their time, it would have exhausted a lot of political capital and general goodwill.
I say this as someone who isn’t a massive fan of Recent YUSU teams and who believes that Ben (along with Lewis) is wrong pretty much on every issue he chooses to discuss, but also as someone who genuinely believes that Ben works hard and is constantly endeavouring to make things better for students. That’s my opinion and by all means leave it behind.
I hope this story is covered in Nouse/by nouse.co.uk.
At least that way enough people will see it so we can have comments from all sides of the argument.
“Jim Bulley happily deleted Chris Etheridge and Jason Rose as friends this afternoon. I just wish it had occured to me to tag them in my status before I deleted them. fail.”
Ben Humphrys and Tom Flynn like this.
Bad welfare Ben, bad welfare.
Can all future protests, whether organised by YUSU or not, please not end up with hundreds of pounds worth of pizza being ordered from Efes.
The fact that all the protesters were munching on pizza outside hes hall undermined the protest and is another example of YUSU wasting money. Best campaign? Are you having a laugh? YUSU couldn’t even run a bath, let alone a decent campaign!
It is very nice to see that people ‘dislike’ the comments made by spineless anonymous members of the YUSU group. By the way, Irony, if an argument does have merit, why not sign it with your name?
Regardless of whether Chris’ claims are true (which I believe they are, as he seems to be an honest person), it is much easier to side with him, given that despite all of the attacks against him, he remains civil. On one side, you get a person who politely makes his points, and on the other you get a bunch of anonymous commentators resorting to personal insults. Who do you think looks more trustworthy?
A.
Oh, how interesting to find out that Cambridge have also had a portering cuts campaign.
I assume they must have, otherwise I can’t really think of any good reason for Aris commenting on this story.
Ah of course, because I am no longer at York, I am supposed to cut ties completely. What utter nonsense. By the way, for all I know, you are not a York student either. Furthermore, I thought that the rationale behind posting anonymously is that what should matter is the argument expressed, not who expresses it. A bit hypocritical?
@Cambridge student:
I assume you will stop caring about people you knew personally at York the day after you graduate?
@Irony Monster, Eye Opening etc:
Chris is an honest, straightforward and polite person and he does not deserve to be insulted like that. If you take issue with what he is saying by all means do point out why you think he is wrong. I for one (and I am sure many others) know nothing of the situation and I’d be interested to hear the other side of the story. These insults do nothing to support your case.
as per Name… Ring dominoes and check if you please.
Either way this is a great article for getting some debate going.
I won’t stop caring, but I’ll stop posting, yes.
Because I’ll be concentrating on things that actually affect my life at that point.
@Cambridge student:
So does this issue actually affect your life in any significant way?
Seriously, will your life really be affected by the fact that a former Campaigns officers thinks that some other YUSU officers were not fully behind a particular campaign?
In fairness, Aris has already finished his masters at Cambridge and he has a job lined up. If he wants to procrastinate by joining us in this largely meaningless and unnecessarily hostile debate, that’s fair enough I think.
I just wanted to register the fact that the portering cuts are affecting
some disabled students in disability-welfare-related ways. This hasn’t
had much attention, but I hope it starts to get taken into account more.
Just saying “most students are okay without it” just doesn’t cut it.
How about those students (and also societies) for whom it DOES matter?
We deserve to have a proper campaign which gets results – as in previous
years when this situation has arisen. YUSU has not delivered, and its
campaign was asking to fail. It’s good that Chris has said his bit.
Although the matter does not affect me in practice (in the same way that it doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t live on campus), it matters in principle. This is because I was still a student when Ben and Tim were elected. If they failed to fulfill their duties, they misled me as well.
Anyhow, this is getting ridiculous. I could very easily have posted anonymously, in which case we would be discussing the actual points here, not whether I should be allowed to comment. I choose to be mature and not resort to personal attacks, even though the identities of some of the anonymous commentators here are obvious.
A.
Another “many YUSU officers care more about their position than their students” revelation…
…At what point does this stop being news?!?
“even though the identities of some of the anonymous commentators here are obvious.”
Most of us don’t post anonymously because we care if people at York know who we are.
We post anonymously to stop internet searches coming up with millions of results, which in 5 years time, might be used against us.
Whether they were free or not, it still made the protestors look like mugs, standing outside Hes hall, munching on pepperoni pizzas.
What serious protest have you ever seen that, after 5 minutes of shouting, ends with the protestors eating pizza and then walking home? This was without a doubt one of the weakest protests ever seen. What an embarrassment!
a) You could always use your first name at least.
b) How would your own opinion be used against you in the future, if you are so sure of it? Be honest, the only reason you post anonymously is that it makes it easier to be nasty and resort to personal attacks.
A.
a) Using a first name is absolutely no different from using an alias, is it?
b) Because only a fool would possibly claim they will never change their mind on a topic, or indeed, care about a particular issue in 3,5 or 10 years time.
“Be honest, the only reason you post anonymously is that it makes it easier to be nasty and resort to personal attacks.”
Incorrect. Although winding you up is very enjoyable by-product that everyone who reads Nouse or Vision online enjoys.
“a) Using a first name is absolutely no different from using an alias, is it?”
I think it is quite different. Using a first name makes you identifiable to York students who take an interest in these issues (a rather small number of people if we are to be honest with ourselves) but it does not create a googlable record of your opinions. There are quite a few Georges out there..
Aris, A person might be very happy with their opinion and subsequent comment, but that still doesn’t mean they wish for their name to be returned along with other peoples’ comments, or even the very subject of the article.
I never, ever, want my name to be linked to some of the other comments as quite often, they are stupid.
Excuses, excuses… are you trying to convince me or yourselves?
“Because only a fool would possibly claim they will never change their mind on a topic, or indeed, care about a particular issue in 3,5 or 10 years time.”
I agree with that. In fact, I agree so strongly that I believe there is no shame in changing your mind over an issue, if you are honest about it. So then why not have your old opinions associated with your name, unless they are so extreme that they might seem truly ridiculous in the future? In other words, if you agree that changing your mind over something is legitimate, why don’t you want anyone to be able to say ‘look, in the past you said x’?
I don’t buy it – you just prefer being able to criticise and insult people without them knowing who you are.
A.
“I don’t buy it – you just prefer being able to criticise and insult people without them knowing who you are.”
Not all people.
In fact, only you. It’s just too much fun.
The funny thing is that you truly believe you are winding me up. I am not upset or anything – just surprised at the immaturity you display. You must be living a sad life if you find it fun trying to wind up someone you don’t even know online.
In any case, when I said that you enjoy insulting people, I was not referring to your attitude towards me, but to the attitude anonymous commentators have against Etheridge.
A.
If you don’t mind, why do you continually take the bait Aris? On here and on Nouse. Every single time.
It’s called procrastinating. Still, it is truly pathetic gaining pleasure by winding up strangers online.
A.
Now who’s throwing personal insults around Aris? Hypocritical much?
Bahahahahahaha
No, not really… mine is an insult based on facts, and under my name. I don’t say stuff like ‘Etheridge is boring’ or ‘Chris is indecent’. I say simply that gaining pleasure by mocking people you don’t know online is pathetic. I’d like to know, those who ‘dislike’ my comment, do you really think it is normal to do that? To be so immature you actually enjoy making fun of others online?
Anyway, I am tired of all this. If you are who I think you are, the real reason you dislike me, and the reason you always attack me personally, is that I was one of the strongest critics of the person you supported and whose campaign you designed for a sabbatical position. Instead of admitting it, you keep trying to undermine me in every other discussion. This is truly indecent.
A.
I assume you must be talking about a sabb officer at Cambridge, as I can’t think why you’d be criticising somone at York, not being a student here anymore.
And on that basis, you are wrong.
I can confirm I’m not, nor have I ever been involved in Cambridge Students’ Union.
Aris,
What I don’t like is that regardless of the article on Vision or Nouse, the comments always end up revolving around you. There were 50 decent comments on this article, and now the last 8 are just about you. Intentionally or not, you’ve hijacked another article.
Please, just go away.
Is it my fault that people start attacking me? My original comments were about the article.
A.
You really didn’t need to offer a reply to that. In fact, whenever you’re about to write a reply on these threads again, stop and think. Then go for a walk. And don’t leave a comment.
Go on, now, go. Walk out the door. You’re not welcome anymore.