I can easily see why Fran's tales are considered by many to be fantasies but remembering the attitude of society towards the upbringing of kids in the 30's 40's and 50's, I can't positvely state that they're all entirely fake. If they were more explicit and titilating I would certainly agree with Lotta's assessment but there is nothing in them that would have shocked anyone in the 40's and it may well have continued into some schools in the 60s. I have little knowledge of that period other than that it was when my children were educated - and although I'm pretty sure the punishments Fran describes weren't experienced by my daughters they certainly were not unknown to my son.
I think this is the problem. None of us can state absolutely without any doubt at all (except Lotta, of course) that it never happened to any (female) contributer here in another school in the 60s. We have only our personal knowledge, which has to be very limited, of school life. If it did happen in that school and Fran was there at the time, her stories are not so incredible.
Unless and until Fran is proven to be a liar and a fraud, she is innocent - whatever Lotta says.

Danny,

If you are looking for the ‘explicit and titillating’ then Fran can certainly do it with:

‘Did the slipper hurt? Yes it did. I was wearing my Gym knickers but every stroke of the slipper stung an awful lot. It was very difficult to remain bending over, and very difficult to keep touching my toes. (In fact I remember changing to holding on to my ankles) The force of strokes felt as though they would knock me over (It was a mans big plimsole and I am quite small). It was also quite noisy, the sound of the whacks were very loud and echoed round the room. I was told I was to get six but after about three I sort of lost count and remember thinking 'please stop'. I did not say anything however, and tried not to make any noise. (This was expected at that date, I don't know how I knew, but we knew.) I was determined not to cry, and did not do so directly as a result of the punishment. Afterwards I can only describe the feeling in my bottom as a very warm glow.’

I note that you resigned from this forum on 7 October 2005 and I have no record of you having renewed your subscription.

No sane person can operate on the principle that every story he/she hears is true unless it is proved to be false.

Even if we adopted such a philosophy, we'd have to abandon it as soon as we heard two stories that contradicted each other.

The evidence on Friends Reunited is crystal clear - girls were not slippered by that infamous male gym teacher at Copland School - and, regardless of their historical inaccuracy, the Frantasies were quite obviously written by a man pretending to be a woman.

It really is like banging your head against a wall!

Subs manager - If there was any sense in this forum you would boot out Lotta, not turn on those who try to keep this place on a fairly sane and sensible course. However, if I'm not welcome here, sobeit.

I'm quite sure it's not the subscription manager's intention to turn on those who try to keep this place on a fairly sane and sensible course.

Indeed, I'm sure it's not his intention to turn anybody on.

Prove he's not trying to turn anyone on

Lotta, I think most of us agree that not every story we hear is true unless it is proved to be false but we apply a bit of common sense before making a decision regarding authenticity. To use your example of elephants climbibg trees; if you told me you had seen this happen I will not believe you becasue I know it's impossible. If you told me that you had been to Italy for a holiday then I would believe you becasue that is possible and I've got no reason to not believe it.

You dismiss stories that are possible without any reason. You instantly dismissed the suggestion that schoolgirls once wore stockings and suspenders under their gymslips and showed your ignorance in doing so.

Now, it is a fact that girls were slippered by male teachers so you need a good reason to disbelieve anyone who says that it happened to them. You use such phrases as 'obviously a lie' without saying why it is obvious. Why not share your reasons with everyone else?

J

To our intelligent readers, the Frantasies are obviously the work of a man pretending to be a woman.

Anyone who suspects the stories might be genuine is clearly beyond help and no amount of explanation will change his simple mind.

Forum Administrators have a duty identical to a referee; totally unbiased management of the game such that it is fair and equal game for all.

Unfortunately we are seeing a lotta departure from this simple principle - people with a lot to contribute find their posts unnecessarily edited (and occasionally outright deleted), or are subjected to personal affronts, while complete time-wasting fools like Lotta receive favourable treatment.

If intervention is justified in the interests of a smooth running forum, a top priority would be to restict Lotta to two stupid posts each month and edit or delete the rest.

Lotta, the members of the jury are not required to be intelligent and have anything other than simple minds. It is the job of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to these simple-minded people.
This requires the intelligence to construct a persuasive argument using the available evidence so if you do not think you have the necessary attributes then I agree that there is no point in you trying.
To use such phrases as ‘this is obviously a lie’ are not very persuasive and will almost certainly guarantee an acquittal.

Simply J

Regretfully, Fran is not being tried in the Crown Court for a criminal offence and therefore nobody is required to establish anything 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

But let us not confuse the issue with legal jargon. Those who cannot or will not see the plain truth are welcome to believe what they choose.

Lotta, I apologise for confusing you. I will try to use shorter words in future.

J

Fran seems to be morphing more and more into Deus ex Machina with every Frantasie that's published.

Research Assistant foxed me by combining more than one 'Fran' posting together in Frantasie 22, as a result it took me ages to work through all the back-postings to find the originals which do seem to be from a long time ago.

As a result I apologise for wrongly claiming that 'Fran' never showed any inclination to involve science or 'Maths' in postings. However the actual paragraph about 2+2 etc contains a correct first sentence followed by a 'Lotta Nonsense'. No variation from normality on this forum but the statements about 2+2=4 which is complete statement in itself equalling 73 has been cobbled or copied from something else.

Below is a shortened facsimile of the original plus a quite exciting post I found as a result of the extensive search and which I had also missed up till now.

Fran
Re: Re: Re: Was CP in school always an abusive act?
No score for this post August 18 2002, 10:08 PM

If your view of the potential of any aspect of our debate is so deterministic, and you believe you literally either already have, or can 'look up' the answers, (with due consideration to some of your clearly original, but definitely not subject-oriented contributions)why then do you bother to visit or 'contribute' to this forum at all??

Indeed, what is your definition of 'a forum'. Do you believe that all persons are born with perfect knowledge of all subjects across all periods of time. Do you deny the value of any form of educational process, except in respect of yourself? Should all discussion attempting to explore and generate conclusions be considered specious?

'2+2=4' is an a-priori definition within a particular logical framework. It is not inconceivable with a multi-dimensional approach that certain exemplars of the paradigm '2+2=4' could yield the 'answer' '73'.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message


James
The best i fear is yet to come
No score for this post August 11 2002, 10:52 PM

I am sorry, your all getting an overdose of Miss Ross stories. Do be careful what you do with those kleenex Jockie, remember Mens sana in corpore sano as we seem to be having a Latin day today, plus Sarajanes got her eye on you!! LOL

PS I think it means a healthy mind in a healthy body but you know who will put me right if i'm wrong!

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message


Fran
Re: The best i fear is yet to come
No score for this post August 11 2002, 11:03 PM

Oh my G-d, you are awful!!

Ms Ross

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message

Thank you for republishing the Frantasies. With every one that appears you can see Fran becoming more and more confused, more and more tired and emotional. It’s such a shame that someone who can write so well about being slippered in green knickers (bending over, touching toes) and grandmother’s recollections of drawers-down birching can descend to the level of this:

“'2+2=4' is an a-priori definition within a particular logical framework. It is not inconceivable with a multi-dimensional approach that certain exemplars of the paradigm '2+2=4' could yield the 'answer' '73'.”

“'2+2=4' is an a-priori definition within a particular logical framework. It is not inconceivable with a multi-dimensional approach that certain exemplars of the paradigm '2+2=4' could yield the 'answer' '73'.” declares the poster known as 'Fran'.

Not much oestrogen in that paragraph, methinks.

Lotta, you incredible little dunce, she's writing about YOU!

In making the observation about oestrogen Lotta has actually solved one of the riddles for me. Fran herself posted that she felt increasingly less interested in the subjects discussed on this forum as she entered the menopause and eventually appears to have given up posting altogether as a result. By 2002 she would already be 50. It is not so surprising that her emotional tone varied considerable at this time as her levels of oestrogen would be doing exactly the same and in some cases be virtually absent. 'Tired and emotional' is a very accurate description of many women in similar circumstances eventually leading to the 'I can't be doing with all that' syndrome which can blight the lives of themselves and their families for several years.

It is sad to see a once bright and steady candle flicker and finally go out, but there it is.

It's even sadder that people who think Fran might be female are actually allowed to vote and sit on juries !!!!

And now for something completely different. From my diary of week ending 5th August: Appeared invisibly on Brighton pier. On Saturday attended 'St Trinians' party in absentia. Got articles on Shanghai promised for 'ivebeentoChina Watch' published in 'Insight City News' (its Brighton and Hove ACTUALLY). Didn't vote. Didn't sit on Jury.

Beats working.

What do you do?

I'm not surprised Deus can make himself invisible.

I've never had the slightest difficulty seeing through him.

LOTTA

Console yourself with the thought that YOU are a long way from this particular event, dear, AND Fran could still have been going through the menopause as a man.

As you posted elsewhere, those doing it are too busy to be writing about it on the net, which is probably a classic definition of either manopause!

Unfortunately, the male menopause means you stop thinking 19-yr old girls are turned on by older men and a firm hand.

Instead, you sincerely BELIEVE they are!


Steve

"I have obviously got too old, or 'past it' to understand what passes for 'wit' or 'satire' these days. It used to be constructed from a combination of referential frameworks, allusions and extensions of actual observed behaviour of the subjects into the realms of the absurb.

Over an extended period I have not noticed many contributions achieving these criteria. I have (however) noticed some 'more or less' relevant and supported criticism of content and form of such contributions. Challenging the salience of 'received values' is an important function. Unfortunately an acceptance of pre-existing historical reality is required to make this approach valid, and sustainable"

Instead of spewing out mountains of mindless garbage, perhaps everyone would be the recipients of ongoing benefit...

... if Lotta were to carefully read and understand the above...

Quote Lotta:
"It's even sadder that people who think Fran might be female are actually allowed to vote and sit on juries !!!!"

Lotta, it's sad to read that you obviously do not understand how the judicial system works in this country.
The members of the jury, simple-minded though they may be, will have no problem finding Fran to be guilty of being a man when the prosecution supplies believable evidence that she is.
Absolutely no evidence has been presented to the court and as Fran posts as a woman she will remain to be thought of as a woman until proved otherwise. Surely that is fair?

Judge Jethro

Fran and friend

At Copland School there was a PE teacher who was well-known for slippering boys. On Friends Reunited there is no mention of him slippering girls.
Irresistible conclusion - Fran was slippered by him but

FRAN IS MALE.

Why do most amateur detectives on their first assignment have to come up with such drippy conclusions?

Keith is advised not to give up his day job.

I think Keith is 100% correct in his conclusion.

Surprise! Suprise!

I have just ploughed through the latest 6 or 7 episodes of Fran's posts and I'm wondering what exactly the fuss is all about! I have read nothing that surprises me in any of them and have no doubt everything Fran says happened did happen somewhere at some time and fairly often too. Whether Fran is male or female, truthful or a liar is completely irrelevent. Believe the stories or believe them not, who cares? To tell the truth they are boring me now. Enough, please! Let's have some new tales of school life from you all ... we all know Lotta will scoff and tell us to 'Wake up, Gentlemen' but surely we can ignore him/her?
Please Lotta, can we just take your comments as read and get on with the real purpose of this forum.

Oops! The above post is mine. Sorry!

Lotta has no interest in a harmonious and productive forum.

Our negative reactions, and particularly "Please Lotta...", merely energise him/her/it to disrupt more. It became obvious long ago that there was nothing to be gained from reason and being reasonable, and it's virtually impossible for a few hundred viewers/posters to ignore Lotta's constant interruptions, so unfortunately we are going through a period of pushing the other way.

The result will be Lotta learns to be sensible and respectful, or leaves.

If you have any intelligence as opposed to cleverness, Lotta, you can make the future easier for yourself by helping, rather than hindering, School CP Delottisation.

The sure signs of the incorrigible fantasist and/or terminally gullible fool are their constant claims that I denounce everything and everyone as a fake, fraud or fantasy.

Our more intelligent readers will know from long experience that I denounce only fakes, frauds and fantasies as fakes, frauds and fantasies. All other posters and postings are treated with the considerable respect they deserve.

However, I consider it my civic (I might almost say 'sacred') duty to inform new members that:

Fran is a fictional character created by a male writer and the story of her green-knickered slippering is nothing but an absurd flight of fancy. The Fran postings contain some classic examples of a man trying to pose as a female writer.

George was never a headmaster or a teacher although I accept that he might possibly live near a lake.

Dean's wife is fictional character created by Dean.

Lotta, we are all quite capable of making up our own minds on who is trying it on. I, along with probably most of the rest of the readership here, have grave doubts about the majority of the tales of green knickers etc. What I find very irritating, much more so than any fantastic claim, is to be constantly told I'm an idiot for believing it. You seem to think you, and you alone, can spot the fraudster. Most of the rest of us are just as astute but far less arrogant - that's the difference.

Danny,

It gave me great pleasure to renew your subscription in the name of ‘Danny’, but if you wish to contribute using the name ‘a seemingly terminally gullible fool’, you will need to apply for membership in that name.

Lotta quote:
“Our more intelligent readers will know from long experience that I denounce only fakes, frauds and fantasies as fakes, frauds and fantasies. All other posters and postings are treated with the considerable respect they deserve.”
********************************************************

Really? What about your post in the ‘Stockings and suspender belts at school’ where Anonymous Flash Harry asked:- ”Is it true that schoolgirls wore stockings and suspenders under their gymslips or is this another of those saucy picture postcard myths?”

......and you replied: “It's another of those saucy picture postcard myths.”

Now, all our more intelligent readers know that pre-Quant, stockings and suspenders were normal dress for schoolgirls so on this occasion (and I’m sure there have been others) you denied that something happened just for the sake of it.

The point is Lotta, it’s ok denouncing something as fake if you give the reason why.......... but you never do.

Just one of my AKAs SM. Blame Lotta.

SM seems to have an unusual amount of difficulty blaming Lotta, which is part of the problem.

How did Steve's cows get in here?

"Fran is a fictional character created by a male writer and the story of her green-knickered slippering is nothing but an absurd flight of fancy. The Fran postings contain some classic examples of a man trying to pose as a female writer."
- Lotta Nonsense August 29 2006, 7:51 PM

OK, Lotta, explain to us these "classic examples" (plural) "of a man trying to pose as a female writer".

Or what pathetic excuse are you going to use this time?

Oi!

Neither my cows nor I were involved in these recent postings!

Principally, because neither they nor I wear green knickers. Equally, because I have trawled through a mountain of Copland School postings on FU and have only found references to female CP of any sort at least 7 years before Fran's interlude, plus lashings(sorry!) of postings about a gym master slippering boys at that time and up to mid 70's.

As the said gym master has been dead for at least 4 or 5 years, it seems mighty convenient for Fran to use him. I just hope he isn't as imaginary as Bunbury in The Importance of Being Earnest!

My cows are also peeved at any cross country runs, posted on there,too, as this often frightens them & chews up the river bank. They agree with me that Lotta often flies over walls without regard to cowpats that might await her.

But on this one, Lotta is right. These stories are very good, well-written and even erudite. All things that women of my generation are NOT about their own humilations, especially CP experiences, especially on a public forum.

Pity Lotta isn't old enough to've worn stockings, but you can't have it all and neither can I, especially if Sarah sees this!!


Steve

Now I'VE missed something!


Lotta, bless her, is occasionally scornful of us men, because we aren't quite as quick as her in picking up the bull merchants.

My cows are also content because of the lack of bulls, but Lotta should not be assumed to think the same way!


Steve

C'mon, Steve, that's as phony as Lotta's answers are going to be and you know it; complete smoke and mirrors without an ounce of substance.

Right?

But since you insist Lotta is right, let's hear your version too.

Maybe, just maybe, if this gender nonsense isn't nonsense, we'll get some straight goods from someone.

And

Tadaaa...

Lotta, you're on too...

Oh, and Dean, I know you're reading this so er... regret to inform you, old chap, that your wife doesn't exist... I guess that goes for your kid too (well I mean, you know...)

Anyone down under have anything to say about it - your non existent wife perhaps?

If all members of this forum had at least average intelligence coupled with a reasonable grasp of the English language, we'd all get along a lot better than we do.

A sense of humour and some basic understanding of 'irony' would help too - but that would be asking too much.

When someone asks "Is it true that schoolgirls wore stockings and suspenders under their gymslips?", the answer depends upon whether we interpret the question as referring to:

a) ALL schoolgirls on ALL occasions
b) ALL schoolgirls on SOME occasions
c) SOME schoolgirls on ALL occasions

or

d) SOME schoolgirls on SOME occasions

Now, clearly (a) cannot be true as we all surely accept that since time began at least one schoolgirl failed upon at least one occasion to dress in the fashion described.

Clearly too, (b) cannot be true as we all surely accept that since time began at least one schoolgirl failed throughout the entirety of her schooldays to dress in the fashion described.

Equally clearly, (c) cannot be true as we all surely accept that since time began there was never a schoolgirl who donned the aforementioned garments on the first morning of her schooldays and failed throughout the entirety of her schooldays ever to remove them.

That leaves us with (d) and the answer must of course be 'Yes' because we must accept that SOME members of every large population SOMEtimes did just about anything one cares to name. Interpretation (d) therefore renders the question pointless and so that interpretation may be discarded.

That leaves us with three sensible interpretations all of which can be answered only in the negative.

I rest my case.

If anyone bothers to look at a previous thread on this forum on the subject of "stockings and suspenders" you will see a post of mine in which I state that I have seen a genuine school uniform list for Fulneck Girls School in West Yorkshire dated circa 1980 in which stockings and suspenders or tights were part of the official uniform for senior girls. I have since seen another document in which Matron was authorised to perform skirt length inspections with the girl kneeling on a chair.

You deliberately used fake logic to mock the stockings issue and bypass the real one, didn't you, Lotta?

Now give us a clear description of each of the "classic examples of a man trying to pose as a female writer." that you claim are in the Fran postings.

Tony, please don't ask silly questions of our Lotta! You know very well that the only thing she's any good at is spouting a lotta nonsense - i.e. Her 'logical' answer a few posts up.
Better to ask Steve's cows - now there you may get a bit of sense!

Sorry, Danny, I'm well aware of Lotta's inability to deal with facts and logic, but the intent is to free the forum from constant nonsense. Think of it as a bitter pill to cure a lingering illness.

Now, Lotta, we're waiting for those descriptions...

To explain what betrays Fran's maleness would be to assist gender benders to bend their gender more convincingly.

I shan't be doing that.

The same pathetic excuse as last time!

You have no need to worry, Lotta. Few serious gender benders will be reading this and even fewer would take your answers seriously. (Because if they are any good at their art they will have long ago concluded that what Lotta writes is impractical and illogical.)

If you are not prepared to justify things, DON'T PUBLISH THEM.

You clearly informed us that Fran's posts contain "classic examples of a man trying to pose as a female writer".

So stop wasting our time with feeble ploys, Lotta. If you can't provide believable answers the conclusion is what you wrote is fabricated, and you will confirm that nothing you post on this forum can be believed.

This
thread
is
looking
very
thin
again.

Right!

a) Women don't tend towards long e-mails, period. Tough though it may be, read Lotta's & other female regular posters. They don't tend to great length too often.

b) Women tend to talk the hind-leg off a donkey when they gossip, and that is most often in the company of other women, and in the powder room, on a girl's night out etc, Sexist or not, that's the facts. They aren't as good as men at gossiping in e-mails-just isn't their style.

c) Women do not tend to go into the gory details of CP suffered at school. Most will say,yes I got caned at school & that's all you will get from them, if you're lucky. I've met around a dozen women I KNOW were subject to it, from reliable sources, and only 3 would even admit to it. None of the other 3 would go any further than, yeh, I got it, but who didn't at that ****-hole of a school, etc.

d) Women also don't tend to reveal much about their private lives on line. Fran's posts are entertaining, but drop signifcant details about how many kids etc in now and again. What do YOU know about Lotta from her posts-she once had a cat that reached the same age as my recently-demised Cleo. Anything else?

e) All the women I've had the pleasure of spanking(and I'm NOT going into that here) have spoken fondly of my discretion and that I'd be the last person on Earth to spread word of their little enjoyments! Most women tend to keep their lusts and fantasies purely between them and the recipient, just occasionally spilling onto loo walls with the general itching, not the details!

f) The grammar and general style is almost pedantic in places & I've known 6-8 people in life like that, of whom only one was a formidable spinster Grade 7 in the Civil Service. She also didn't speak conversationally quite like Fran's e-mails stick to their almost full formality.

g) I am around the same age as Fran & I can assure you that ANY male teacher practising CP on schoolgirls in a MIXED school would have been in serious strife. From my experience then and later in conversation, female teachers would have been summoned to the class, or the miscreant sent to Miss for whatever. Why in the name of God else would girl's gym equipment be stuck at gym knickers and not tightly-fitting athletic shorts do you think? I honestly doubt any secondary school in 1966 was quite stupid enough to let either teenage female or middle-aged teacher lusts meet in open combat. I know teachers viewed CP as a duty, but I very much doubt any Head worth their salt would casually tell the LEA that it was therefore OK for male teachers to have 12-18 yr old GIRLS over their knee.

Right, I do now have to feed the cats! I'm not saying ANY of this PROVES Fran is not a woman. All I will say is there's a mound of circumstantial evidence pointing to it.

Steve, I agree with everything you say. The differece between you and Lotta is in your last paragraph. If only Lotta phrased her posts in a similar fashion there would be little to disagree with.
But, then again, life would be dull on this forum, wouldn't it?

Why is anyone bothered about Lotta. Some girls definately wore stockings in most schools in the 50s/60s, dependant on their ages of course. Male teachers had no problems dishing out spankings or slipperings in muy schools.

Numerous issues arise from Steve and Lotta's latest posts:

Basically Steve is grasping to build a case that matches his goal - to side with Lotta and show support. There is a big difference between this and an open, impartial look at the issues to see where they point. All of Steve's several points have some validity, as do the many reasons to not wear a raincoat in a rainstorm, yet in balance the reasons to wear one win, as witnessed by the fact that virtually every sane and sensible person is seen wearing a raincoat. His arguments summarize to the fact that most women would not post as Fran did and what she describes would be unlikely to happen under most circumstances.

But the fact remains that many improper things, by today's standards, DID happen decades ago. At my school most boys were not abused, most teachers did not abuse them, and under most circumstances cp was used only when there was well established justification. Yet one Master blatently took advantage, slippered numerous boys in class with obvious enjoyment and minimal justification - and was never taken to task. Similarly, most Iraqis don't treat other humans barbarically, yet apparently their leaders did.

So generalising what would happen to most women under most circumstances doesn't prove a thing.

Frankly I still find Fran's version far more convincing, but I am not about to reach any black and white conclusions, much less try to thrust them on others.

And Lotta, true to form, you made yet another silly little attempt to deflect attention onto whatever side issue was conveniently at hand - and thus sidestep responsibility.

We are still waiting for your descriptions, Lotta.

(By the way Steve, you seem to have acquired a valuable skill. Perhaps we call it the Inverse Cows Effect, or ICE for short. Every time I've tried to get sane margins back by responding to an earlier message, the new one finishes up way up the page, but you seem to be able to keep it at the end. How do you do it?)