Richards point:


Martin

"More seriously: this comment smacks of another example of using a form of cyberbullying (in this case by deliberately drawing attention to contact information posted for another purpose) as a weapon against those whose views one does not agree with. Pity, really."


This suggests that EmmaB thinks that the chris shaw in this thread is the same as the chris shaw in a previous thread and that she is drawing attentiion to his contact details in order to make it possible for people to bully him.

"Precisely. It is the PRESUMPTION that someone who had connections with the tradition couldn't simultaneously hold pro-BNP views that fascinates me. I have no idea whether the two posters are one and the same - but I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be."


This suggests that she has presumed that they are not the same person and that that is a bad thing.

Which point do you stand by?

My point

In fact both the above points are nonsense, she has alerted us to the possibility that another mudcat identity may have been cloned.

She may be right or wrong, but under current circumstances her observation may prove useful to moderators, to Chris Shaw and also to the rest of us as reminders to remain vigilant.