tigerloaf » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:59 am
I see Rosalinda/Linda/Rosalind Hutton has chickened out of posting up the two copies of the article side-by-side (the one she claims to have approved with her corrections to it in red and the one eventually published).
Did anyone expect anything else from this self-confessed troll and proven liar? Just as Sonia Poulton has chickened out of the challenge put to her, so her disciple has followed.
Instead of posting up the two copies she seems to have passed one to a single person, the mod called Freedom. This mod on the forum which isn't hers could even be herself for all anyone actually knows. She does, after all, have a penchant for playing with names.
Hutton has failed to provide evidence for any of her claims, either those related to the content of the article or those described in the article. Indeed the latter are in direct contradiction to the claims she has previously made.
The one criticism she makes of those who were challenging her "attacking of the McCanns" is that they supposedly phoned her about the death of her mother. There is no evidence offered by Hutton of this at all, no reference for example to any comment she made online at the time or to any complaint she made at the time. Indeed, the entire story she told Martin Daubney contradicts what she was telling people at the time and in the intervening years.
Which of the two tales is the blatant lie because they cannot both be correct?
Yesterday in Daubney's article she is perfectly clear that her mother, father and best friend had died before Madeleine went missing.
Previously (last August -
http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/0 ... aving.html ) she told us about the conversations she was having with her mother about Gerry and Kate McCann some time after Madeleine went missing.
I simply do not believe that Hutton has forgotten when her mother died. She has used the poor woman (who she publicly abuses with her phrase that she was "as mad as a hatter" to exaggerate the situation with Daubney. She has lied.
But that is what trolls do. They lie, they abuse, they exaggerate for effect, they are in it for the buzz and they get their kicks from their activities. And we know for certain that Rosalinda/Rosalind/Linda Hutton is a troll. She has told us that she is one.
The Twitter request from Sonia Poulton to which Hutton presumably responded gleefully was a request for a passionate anti-McCann troll to be interviewed.
Sonia Poulton@SoniaPoulton #journorequest am looking for a passionate #mccann anti, prepared to be identified for a newspaper feature. Chance to put case forward.
And Hutton tells us herself that she knew it was an article about TROLLS (her emphasis).
The article was about TROLLS, I was an interviewee, I had no control whatsoever over what was published, yet some have assumed that I ALONE wrote it, edited it and placed it under a sensational headline. The article was by Martin Daubney, NOT Sonia Poulton. He approached Sonia because he knew she was working on a McCann documentary and knew several people who, as campaigners, could be classed as trolls and he wanted someone who was willing to be identified.
http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/She knew full well that she was being interviewed as a TROLL for an article about trolling. That is why everything she talks about in the article is about her actions as a TROLL.
In her own words she describes how she needs an audience and gets a buzz from being the centre of attention. That is why she did the interview.
She told us yesterday on FB about the fact that she was so excited she spent three days preparing for the interview but having known the subject at hand it is clear that her preparation was flawed. It was never going to be about the McCann case (even if Poulton had lied about that to her).
If I may explain. I prepared for 3 days for the interview and went into it with a concise list of the important flaws in the missing Madeleine case and I ticked them off as we spoke. The article however is about trolls and trolling, it was never going to be about the McCann case specifically. I gave Martin examples of the worst of troll behaviour in the McCann case, which is what he wanted, their media monitors were trying to persuade me to committ suicide ffs, everyone seems to have overlooked that. Martin wishes to bring the issues around trolling out into the open with the public asking questions. And its an important issue and one we would do well to keep our eyes on, because before we know, discussions such as these will no longer be permissible.
We know from her own previous writing that the single example of what she ludicrously describes as "the worst of troll behaviour in the McCann case" is based on a complete a lie. Her mother had not died at the point in time she told Daubney. The date of one's mother's death is not something one would forget easily. Why, having spent three days (at least) preparing for this interview would the only example she could give Daubney of what she claimed was pro-McCann trolling be a lie? I suggest the reason is obvious. She has no other examples. She was trying to exaggerate the way in which her "attacking of the McCanns" was being challenged by those supporting the McCanns. She was trying to suggest that their actions were the equal of hers and the other anti-McCanns who she openly tells us were far more evil than she was.
Even during the actual interview she was getting a buzz, she was exaggerating, she was getting down and dirty and she was bigging herself due to her attention-seeking personality in front of the biggest audience she would ever get in her miserable lonely and depression-riddled life. She was living the life of a TROLL.
It is interesting to see how Daubney has reacted to the article on Twitter. Has he defended Hutton. Well, she probably thinks he has but has he really? Let's read his tweets and look at them carefully.
561535510439804928|Sat Jan 31 14:44:33 +0000 2015|Is trolling addictive? Champions of free speech or cruel losers? I ask @Holbornlolz & @RosalindaHu @TheSunNewspaper
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8r5kd5CEAA-Yx9.png561536578003435520|Sat Jan 31 14:48:47 +0000 2015|@xklamation I don't label anybody, nor does the newspaper. It's two v different interviews. Readers free to make own minds up, as are you
561544845744160768|Sat Jan 31 15:21:38 +0000 2015|@xklamation Yes, all trolls have been labelled that. You could equally say people in piece called that, but I didn't. I don't take sides
561790982820483073|Sun Feb 01 07:39:42 +0000 2015|For the record I never called @RosalindaHu a "cruel loser" I merely reiterated the proposition the article put forward about trolls
561791152056434688|Sun Feb 01 07:40:22 +0000 2015|Also @RosalindaHu and her supporters do not consider themselves trolls. That's the interesting thing about the psychology of it all
561791373679292416|Sun Feb 01 07:41:15 +0000 2015|It seems everybody sees only those who disagree/attack them on the "other side" as trolls. In fact, the term troll almost meaningless
561792278357098496|Sun Feb 01 07:44:51 +0000 2015|On the contrary I found @RosalindaHu to be a warm, kind and driven lady. It's not my job to take "sides". Just tell stories.
561792591659040768|Sun Feb 01 07:46:06 +0000 2015|So I'd like to personally apologise if @RosalindaHu is offended. Was never intention. I had a day off Twitter yesterday - hence late comment
He's a clever writer. That presumably is why he makes a good living from writing and Hutton is an unpaid trolling blogger who is grateful for the few shillings she presumably got for this interview.
He is clear that neither he nor his paper said outright that Hutton is a troll. But he tells you to make up your own mind and based on what Hutton herself said about herself, giving every classic descriptor of a troll then she is a troll.
He tells us he didn't personally call Hutton a "cruel loser" but admits that was the intent of the content of the article.
He says that Hutton doesn't see herself as a troll but then reminds us that that denial and inability to recognise the reality is one of the interesting psychological factors of those doing the trolling.
He re-iterates that trolls only think of their opponents as trolls, suggesting that the term is meaningless. I would agree and prefer to describe the actions of these people as online abusiveness and nastiness.
He then tells us that Hutton is "warm, kind" and (crucially) "driven", that he didn't take sides, just told the story and we can all see from the story told about Hutton in her own words that she is a clear TROLL.
He then apologises to Hutton "if she was offended" suggesting that however much she may be whingeing for the attention, she might not actually be offended. The fact that from her own blog and FB posts we know she was fully aware that she was being interviewed as a TROLL does suggest he might be right in this and that her whingeing is for effect and for the buzz rather than being genuine. After all what can she be offended about if she knew the score in advance?
My take, for what its worth, is that she is simply upset at being seen now as no better than the other trolls who she thought she was a cut above. She isn't though. She is a lonely, depressed old woman who admits that she goes on the Internet to get a buzz from being outrageous and from getting down and dirty. As she told us, if she wasn't kicking people online she might well be kicking the dog. It would appear to be a similar buzz that she gets when she abuses drugs as she admits she does. She is the perfect example of the troubled person who has turned to the Internet and grasped the McCanns as people she feels she can take out her woes on with like-minded drug abusers, depressives and evil nasty people.
She has brought contempt and ridicule on herself by naively subjecting herself to this interview and laying out her psychological problems and needs in this way. She has explained the nature of the anti-McCann troll in ways which others among that number cannot handle because they see more clearly now their own defects. And though she pretends she has revealed something about pro McCanns and indeed the McCanns themselves she is completely deluding herself because no casual reader of that article is going to see anything between the lines of her self-confession as a TROLL and no more knowledgeable reader is going to accept her lie about her own mother's death as evidence of anything at all other than her own personality defects.
We have Sonia Poulton to thank for introducing Rosalinda/Rosalind/Linda Hutton to Martin Daubney in the first place. Those who challenge the attacks on the McCanns by TROLLS such as Hutton are genuinely grateful for this action which has demonstrated just how evil and nasty anti-McCann trolls truly are. Your collusion, Sonia, with the Murdoch empire has been fruitful beyond what you expected. Some believe you were also naive while some believe you actually knew what you were doing? The truth of the matter will soon be revealed won't it?
