The Castle, Acton

Re: "anonymous - 2 Feb 2010 19:33".

Having read this rather personal post I should like to point out a rather obvious inconsistency, a tongue in cheek correction and a rather obvious pointer as to whom actually made it.

1: The poster stated:

"The managers name is unkown (sic) although I know what he looks like".

Yet in the last sentence the poster then stated:

"the current manager "Mike" needs to go".

The author of the previous post then rather ironically wrote:

"Dont (sic) let this Mike character fool you".

This sentence is ironic, because the poster actually seems more bothered about other people tendency towards foolishness rather than avoiding a rather hilarious example of their own.

2: Until reading "anonymous's" post I had absolutely no idea how to spell the previous manager's rather exotic name, and I've been coming to the pub for quite some time. I however understand that the previous poster has actually managed to spell this exotic name (pronounced "Chead-ham") absolutely correctly.

In conclusion, It would take quite a suspension of disbelief for someone who claims to only visit the pub only on Tuesdays to get this 100% correct, that is unless of course they had enjoyed previous access to a written/printed spelling of this name.

3: The previous poster wrote:

"I see this so called manager with his "trophy girlfriend" what is she about 10 years younger than him??"

I understand the "trophy girlfriend" is in fact 13 years younger. I wonder if this fact would increase the level "anonymous's" hysterical indignancy?

4: "anonymous" wrote:

"after they did go there was another gentleman called Sunil he was only the holding manager as he called it, he was a great bloke, always chatty and I dont (sic) think I ever came in and didnt (sic) see him either working or the other side of the bar, either way he was always there."

Now I'm no Sherlock Holmes, yet subtracting the poster's mention of previous managers (in an attempt to give their assertions some supporting reference), and the latter mention of this poster's target of ire, only one person is actually named in a good light.

In conclusion I feel the identity of the previous poster's identity can be determined via the rather elementary process of deduction I have set out above.

12 Mar 2010 17:18