Wednesday, 17 September 2008


I just wanted to comment on the previous article. Many of my friends work for Ceroc™ in various capacities (teachers, DJs, taxi dancers, demos, etc), and the post intends no slight on Ceroc™.

I am annoyed by the underhand tactics of one particular individual. That's all.

.....On a positive note, I like having a Blog!

Who is Patrick Wallaby? Who is he?

This post was originally published on Facebook on 7th September.

Alas, the change to New Facebook means that the only people who can read it are Friends. (If you're a friend, you can read it here).

way - on with the post!

What can I say? It's a cold and damp Sunday afternoon, and I've nothing better to do.

Also, I've been publicly accused of lying, which never puts me in the most receptive frame of mind. Bear this in mind as you read the following...

There’ve been a number of posts by one entertainingly named “Patrick Wallaby” on the Facebook Group “Ceroc’d Off”, which was created by the unhappy folks of Jive Addiction (JA), after being unceremoniously booted from their popular, established Southport Pontins Weekender slots by the seemingly-unstoppable force that is Ceroc™؇.

Patrick’s posts were notable in that they were phrased quite provocatively against JA, and uniquely in support of Ceroc™’s position. This led to suspicions that he was a Ceroc™ Sockpuppet, and naturally, guesses as to his hidden true identity began.

Patrick’s true identity seems obvious to me. However, let me first demonstrate to you the facts (as I see them) behind my theory. For the fun of it, I shall examine distinctive traits on three of Patrick’s posts, and compare them with examples of posts under a certain different, more established, identity of a poster on the Scottish Ceroc forum. ;)


Example 1:

I’ll start in literature. (There’s posh!) There’s a certain Shakespeare scene where Hamlet asks his mother, Gertrude, whether she likes the play that’s just been performed before them. She replies:

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Like much of Shakespeare, the phrase has passed into popular usage, and can be adapted to suit the situation.

Compare Patrick’s adaptation from the Ceroc'd off group:

Patrick Wallaby wrote
at 11:37pm on September 4th, 2008

Methinks the man doth protest too much...

With the following two examples from the Ceroc Scotland forum:
Originally Posted by Rocky (on 21st-January-2008, 05:29 PM):
My goodness! You poor, poor man - what must go on in your head? Methinks the man doth protest too much. You obviously had some VERY bad experiences as a youth. Deal with it Barry instead of projecting your anger and prejudices onto everyone else.

Originally Posted by Rocky (on 18th-July-2007, 04:28 PM):
Well, then you would be the only person in history who didn't think that at least once, so methinks the Smurfy does protest too much...

Rocky and Patrick are obviously both fond of this phrase, and in all examples have moved the “methinks” from the end, to the beginning. An improvement on Shakespeare? Methinks not.


Example 2:

Let’s look at another of Patrick’s posts:

Patrick Wallaby wrote
at 8:36pm on September 4th, 2008

Sorry Kaz, but what have Max's comments got to do with this topic? This is about JA claiming bad practice and unethical business behaviour when in fact they instigated it and just got bitten in the backside by the repurcussions. John and Wes need to 'man up' instead of whinging about the effects of something they created for themselves.

That’s a distinctive misspelling of repercussions there.

Similarly, there’s one on the CerocScotland forum:
Originally Posted by Rocky (on 25th-January-2008, 01:50 PM):
And you have to add in those women who are single and who just want sex and who don't care about the repurcussions of their actions. And those gold diggers who want what they can't have and will destroy relationships to get it. Granted this doesn't reflect how the majority of women act. Just as married men who claim to be single, doesn't reflect the way the majority of men act. But there are good men and bad men and there are good women and bad women. Goodness is not gender exclusive you know..

So, neither Patrick nor Rocky can spell "repercussions". But, oddly, they do misspell it the same way.


Example 3:

From the first of Patrick’s posts:

Patrick Wallaby wrote
at 7:34pm on September 4th, 2008

I can’t believe how naïve you lot are! How’d you suppose Ceroc managed to get SP from JA when JA had run it successfully for 5 yrs & offered more money for the contract? It’s because they were trying to do the same thing at Camber to Ceroc & it backfired on them.
1st, they tried to work in partnership with Franco, who they ditched & then tried going in the backdoor independently. This upset Pontins & is what lead to them losing SP. John overplayed his hand with the new management & acted like their business was indispensable – and guess what? It wasn’t. So, if you want to blame someone for what’s happened at Southport, start by blaming JA for losing the contract as a DIRECT result of their own unethical behaviour. You didn’t really think it was as one sided as JA are portraying did you, bearing in mind their massive vested interest? And as for all the other people on here as commercial operators trying to perpetuate a lie - Shame on you all – BLUSH indeed!

That’s impressive! Note the diaresis over the i in naïve in the first sentence. Most people don’t bother. However, Rocky is one of the few who do, as can be evidenced in the following two posts:
Originally Posted by Rocky (on 22nd-January-2008, 03:15 PM):
Oh dear, you really don't have any idea on what drives the professional, social, commercial and political imperative that exists in science do you? Do you REALLY believe that scientists aren’t affected by these things? ALL science and the scientists therein are subject to a similar hierarchal structure that affects any large organization or group of connected individuals. You may perceive them as separate entities, but the majority of them are not. How sweet, misguided and naïve of you.
Originally Posted by Rocky (on 28th-November-2006, 04:42 PM):
I’ve made an assumption that you don’t run your own business because your comments appear to be a little naïve. As you haven’t answered the question I can only ASSUME that you have never struck out by yourself and flown by the seat of your little yellow pants.

(Of course it’s also interesting to see the use of ALLCAPS to highlight certain words in both Patrick’s and Rocky’s examples).


The evidence against

To be fair, I must mention that Dave Rokov (“Rocky”) has categorically denied my allegations, both publicly on the Ceroc’d off group, and in a (quite threatening, actually) private e-mail.

In the public post (now deleted) he said:

“There are plenty enough people, teachers and franchisees who Patrick (assuming he isn't actually a real person) could be without you drawing me into it without your speculation.”


Summing Up

It's true that another person may have decided to post as "Patrick Wallaby". Maybe this other person would have a similar motive. But given his history of anonymous provocative posting, and the similarity in style, language, idioms and grammar, one might consider that “the man doth protest too much, methinks”...

Who is Patrick? You decide!