To think this hotel owner was in the right

[Rebeccaslicker]

Why do some people think that it's ok to ask for freebies in return for a few blog posts these days? How about the novel concept of getting off the internet, getting a job and actually paying for stuff?!

Am I showing my age and being hopelessly old fashioned, or is this just someone being really cheeky. It's not as if she's Kim sodding Kardashian and would really raise the profile (although to be fair KK would put me off!!).

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/dublin-hotel-bills-vlogger-46-million-for-publicity-after-she-accuses-owner-of-bullying-over-free-a3746401.html%3famp

Please quote me where I've been contradictory?

And I wasn't critical of fearne for being young at all. I never said that, so why make that up? Critial of her for being shit at interviews, dim and taking credit for other people's work. Never did I mention her apparence or being young (she isn't young anyway).

But.... when people did exactly that on this thread, you said, it's just because she's young and pretty

Yorick Ah, you're one of those people who thinks MN should only be for women, are you? I thought it was worth clarifying, as on another thread today, I was called "hun" due to the assumption I was a woman (or a very old German who was around in First World War perhaps).

skegness But it's OK to slag her off for her general "celebness" and lack of talent, and how she deprives real writers of opportunities... I find it odd that it's OK to slag her off but OK to defend the blogger...

Interesting how this thread has turned into personal attacks. Bit like what we're discussing really...

She was so not “pretty”! Lollol

Ghastly and dull - yes, for sure.

Yorick Ah, you're one of those people who thinks MN should only be for women, are you?

Sorry, could you quote the line where I said men shouldn't be on MN? And if you can't find such a line, kindly say that you can't.

If on the other hand you want to quote the line where I said that it is entirely irrelevant that she has been found wanting in your man's appraisal of her fuckability, have at it.

But do the first one first, please. I am waiting.

I did not see Skegness Fearne Cotton thread but would have to agree 1000% she is THE most irritating presenter/Dj or whaever her job title is out there her voice ....just ....GRATES!!!!!! aaaarrrrgghhhh She is so blah and bland, can't believe she has had the long career she has

@wag

One is slagging off ethics the other is buisness sense. Again two different things.

I praise fearn cotton for being minimally tallented but able to make a fortune slapping her name on a book someone else wrote, clothes other people designed and reading lines that other people wrote. That's good buisness sense. I've been critial of this blogger also just not her business or the original request.

I get her mixed up with holly willoughby (don't really watch much tv!), are they very different then??

Yorick The tone and inference suggested as much. In fact, two posters on this thread messaged me completely out of the blue to say that they felt your post meant precisely that and that they didn't agree with it. We'll therefore agree to differ.

I do find it interesting that you chose to attack me personally for stating I thought she was unattractive - I did not use the words unbangable or fuckability. You did not choose to attack anyone else on this thread for using terms like "fish-lipped". Odd, that.

IWanna He didn't really send her that invoice. Just like he really hasn't banned vegans. Or bloggers

I know he didn't really send her the invoice, that much is evident that he is just a stupid wind up merchant who reallllly doesn't know when to let it drop.

I laughed at first, now I think it has all gone a bit too far. The invoice, the Tshirts. They’re all making a lot of money out of this now though aren’t they, so it won’t stop.

Yorick The tone and inference suggested as much.

In other words, despite your accusation, I did not once say that men should not be allowed on MN. Why won't you admit I did not say it?

What I did say, and will say again, is that your man's assessment of whether a woman is shaggable is not relevant here, and will very rarely be relevant elsewhere. And you can safely assume it will never be relevant on MN.

Yorick This is now derailing the thread, but as you've asked. You did NOT say men are not welcome on MN. But then I didn't actually STATE that you did. I actually asked the question of "are you?"

Anyway, now I have answered you, please answer me, as to why it's OK to personally have a go at me for saying that I don't find her attractive when other posters actually were very derogatory about her looks, using terms like "fish-lipped" which is unpleasant and extremely personal. You didn't take offence at that? That's allowed to pass without comment? Why is that?

I know he didn't actually send the invoice. I meant that in creating/putting it online, when everything had died down, it was a dickish move. He'd had his say and any further digging at her was unnecessary.

Yorick This is now derailing the thread, but as you've asked. You did NOT say men are not welcome on MN. But then I didn't actually STATE that you did. I actually asked the question of "are you?"

Am I what? And your exact words were: "Yorick Ah, you're one of those people who thinks MN should only be for women, are you?" If that's not a statement that I think men are unwelcome on MN, what is?

Anyway, now I have answered you, please answer me, as to why it's OK to personally have a go at me

Oh good God, I did not "personally have a go at you." I told you that statements of "I am a man and don't find her attractive" don't belong in this discussion, and won't belong in any discussion to be found on MN any time soon.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is quite a culture for men to make statements about whether or not they find women attractive, with the fact that they're looking through a man's eyes highlighted as being somehow relevant.

I'll grant you weren't as crude as it can be, but it's the same shit. And it doesn't help that, when it's brought to your attention (my initial comment was simply 'so frigging what?'), you complain about 'having a go' and pretending I told you to get off MN.

You could have said, "Well I'm a man so I'm not likely to be jealous" and left out your assessment of her looks. Or even "God, enough with this crappy misogynistic narrative about all women being jealous harridans, sometimes women just think another woman is an idiot." But you didn't.

It is ANNOYING, Shatner, largely because this is an attitude we see every day, all over the place, in various guises. Please look at it.

I have two friends who make money blogging, one in her early 40s, one is a man closer to 60. In each case they build up a following in their niche areas and gained a reputation as trusted experts. They do OK but it isn't a living, they get freebie products and trips away to award ceremonies etc with expenses paid so it's just a nice top up to their normal lifestyle. I think the Alfies and Zoellas of the world are few and far between.

I don't necessarily disagree with WHAT you are saying but the WAY you are saying it, just as you disagree with how I said what I said. It's perfectly possible to say things in a reasonable manner. You could just have easily said "I disagree" rather than "so frigging what?"

We're discussing a subject where both sides had followers who were sending unfair, inappropriate and nasty messages to both the hotel manager and the blogger. This thread has degenerated in the same way as the original issue.

Thank you for answering the first part of my question if not the second. I was not asking why it was OK to attack me, I was asking why it was OK to have a go at me but NOT to have a go at posters who were being very, very personal and nasty about the blogger's appearance AT THE SAME TIME.

I'm quite happy for you to feel my comment was unnecessary or irrelevant, whether we agree on that or not. But why is it that NO ONE had a go at posters for using really unpleasant language about the bloggers appearance?

I was not asking why it was OK to attack me

Then what did you mean by "please answer me, as to why it's OK to personally have a go at me"??

You keep changing what both of us have clearly said, Shatner, and for that reason alone I don’t want to continue a discussion with you. ‘That isn’t relevant’ became ‘You don’t want men to be allowed on MN!’. Which then became, ‘I was just asking you if you don’t want men to be allowed on MN!’ And now “please answer me, as to why it's OK to personally have a go at me” has become “I was not asking why it was OK to attack me”.

The last two are direct quotes!

I don’t know, Shatner, are we speaking the same language? I’m not fluent in Klingon.

However, if you’ve decided that you DID say something thoughtless (which is ok! You can then say, “Ah shit, I hadn’t thought of it that way but I see the issue now”) but now your issue is why am I talking only to you….

Well first of all, the issue of men appraising women with qualifiers such as “As a man, I find her….” is much, much more important than me pissing you off on MN. So perhaps you would like to assess your priorities.

But even taking that into account, I guess I have limited resources. When I see Objectionable Thing 1 has already been pounced on by several people but Objectionable Thing 2 hasn’t been, I’ll probably take up the latter. It’s still an important matter.

I hope that answers your question.

I was called "hun" due to the assumption I was a woman (or a very old German who was around in First World War perhaps)

No, it wasn't because you were assumed to be a woman. It was because you were sounding cheerleader like, you sounded like you were "like hun, that's sooooo cool" - sounded like language you'd be likely to come out with.

For those saying this subject has already been done, things have moved on since then (the fake invoice, the t shirts and the blogger's latest video etc.) so it's not quite the same as the previous threads.

If she'd bothered to research Paul Stenson and/or his businesses she would not have sent that email (if she had any sense). From the sound of it she just sent a generic email to a number of hotels in Dublin hoping she'd get a 'hit' from one of them. Well, she did but not in the way she hoped.

She's also fuelling the fire, so her victim status doesn't wash with me. Tripadvisor has suspended reviews on the White Moose Cafe due to all the fake 1* reviews that have been posted. Her followers (and other bloggers with their noses out of joint) have been flooding every review site with fake reviews designed to damage his business.

He's survived that sort of crap before and his business has grown stronger for it. Nobody likes a whiny brat, whether that's a blogger/blagger or triggered, humourless vegans*

• disclaimer: I'm vegan and I think the 'vegan ashes' pot looks pretty good next to the 'bloggers tears' one.

Been wondering if it was a set-up and collaboration. But I don’t think the blogger is sophisticated enough to be part of such a scheme, although, I completely believe he played her. Sadly, I believe she is that deluded and quite thick. PR and spin are not a new thing, there are just new avenues for the same old principle. Infamy is among the most effective, free tool, setting morality aside. The arrogance of this daft fool is staggering. And her sense of entitlement is astounding. To try get an upgrade or perhaps an overnight stay free during a quieter period is one thing but asking for FIVE days around one of the traditionally busiest times for hospitality is just mindboggling! And when you make a pitch, you should do some basic research about the person you approach. It’s totally unprofessional for anyone claiming they run a business. As for her whiny response, it was cringetastic. I reckon even Gandhi would have been inclined to summon the slap-ferry to smack her with his dusty sandals!