Mr C Barker
Mary
He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
Jeff Lawrence
news:q1Wpl.47$FF1...@newsfe20.iad...
>I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>
> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
Well, your heartfelt and no doubt entirely geniune argument has certainly
convinced me, and surely many others in this NG.
I'm sure we'll have no more problems on this front. Thanks Mary.
Cheers
Jeff
Mike Plowman
>I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>
>He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
TROLL_O_METER
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10
--->
Very poor. Very poor indeed
--
Mike Plowman
Mary
I'm not a troll.
Just because I read what goes on here and can see the incessant
bullying of Chris, it doesn't make me a troll.
He's more of a man than many here and has a very lucky wife.
Jeff Lawrence
> He's more of a man than many here and has a very lucky wife.
He certainly does. All other wives must look at her with total envy. After
all, which wife wouldn't like to have a husband who dosses around at home
all day whilst she goes out to work in order to provide for her family. Any
wife who denies that they'd like a husband like that would have to be a
liar.
I daren't mention his behaviour to my own wife as I'm afraid she will then
realise that it's possible for such husbands as the Chris Barkers of this
world to exist.
Cheers
Jeff
Mike Plowman
>Mike Plowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:11:34 GMT, "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>> >
>> > He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
>>
>> TROLL_O_METER
>> 0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10
>> --->
>>
>> Very poor. Very poor indeed
>
>I'm not a troll.
>
>Just because I read what goes on here and can see the incessant
>bullying of Chris, it doesn't make me a troll.
Yes, of course it doesn't once we take all your other posts about TV
into account.
>
>He's more of a man than many here
Indeed, as I'm sure Ophelia, Anne and Maria would agree.
>and has a very lucky wife.
I think she's very lucky too.
--
Mike Plowman
Jeff Lawrence
news:8lbgq49gtnvct6npi...@4ax.com...
Come on Mike, that's not very fair. Mary is a long standing and popular
member of this NG who has contributed a lot of sense
to many threads throughout the years. I think she deserves to be listened to
here and given the benefit of the doubt.
Cheers
Jeff
Ophelia
What I don't understand is, why, if 'Mary' feels so strongly about Barker,
she needs to hide behind m...@privacy.net
Shrike
> "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:HeWpl.86226$xK6....@newsfe12.iad...
>
> > He's more of a man than many here and has a very lucky wife.
>
> He certainly does. All other wives must look at her with total envy. After
> all, which wife wouldn't like to have a husband who dosses around at home
> all day whilst she goes out to work in order to provide for her family. Any
> wife who denies that they'd like a husband like that would have to be a
> liar.
Well, you're wrong on about three counts there, but please don't let
mere facts stand in the way of malicious speculations.
Presumably you can't be that busy yourself "providing" for your own
family if you can spend so much time posting to UMTM.
CB
Jeff Lawrence
news:0201170f-e092-4005...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>Presumably you can't be that busy yourself "providing" for your own
>family if you can spend so much time posting to UMTM.
That must indeed be the case.
Cheers
Jeff
Mary
It's not hiding, m...@privacy.net is a common SPAM avoidance.
Shrike
Says someone who keeps her own identity secret.
PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
Jeff Lawrence
>PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
Why is it "Mr Barker" to her then, Barker?
Cheers
Jeff
Shrike
> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Unlikely though, given that there are is no beginning to your talents.
I mean in all seriousness, what respectable job can you possibly do
that allows to spend the whole day posting to UMTM? Telesales from
home?
All this "his poor wife" stuff is most likely projection on your part.
My wife has a degree, a professional occupation and can speak two
languages fluently. She is IT literate and would, if she could be
bothered, kick your lardy derriere around on usenet with ease if she
wished to. In contrast I suspect you keep your poor South American
well away from the family computer, spinning her yarns about being
busy pursuing telesales leads when in reality you are pounding UMTM
all day with very cheesy quips.
Yes, I think projection plays a _very_ large part in your life.
Well, along with seeking cures for premature baldness. ;)
Shrike
> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
For the same reason that it's "Mr Barker" to you, Lawrence. Because I
don't like either of you and you should be respectful towards your
betters.
Daniel Lincoln
On Feb 27, 6:59 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>Yes, I think projection plays a _very_ large part in your life.
It certainly does. I love showing my old home movies.
Cheers
Jeff
Daniel Lincoln
Ah, thanks for clearing it up Barker.
Cheers
Jeff
sipst...@my-deja.com
Oh dear.
Mike Plowman
They're like buses. You wait hours for a sock puppet and then two come
along at once!
--
Mike Plowman
Mary
> I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>
> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
Actually I've read all the archives and now realise I was quite wrong
and Mr Barker is in fact a troublemaker, his offline stalking is
disturbing . He is obviously quite disturbed in the head .
Mary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
> U2FsdGVkX19gjI/MPGzsBZEzlycAwV8GldNQIEp7c4Hfdd4f5r+mftcHnzjLbToTXUJEKs
> ZhqjY4akVUcpQhSo+KrMoyvWIcKynyaPUUO/wSqBB3cDgR7+O9i8yVh8MrQO+n5AhkhNMc
> ZGnweLmQbA== X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to
> ab...@motzarella.org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb
> 2009 19:55:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <q1Wpl.47$FF1...@newsfe20.iad>
> X-Auth-Sender:
> U2FsdGVkX1/taPl0MQOrkh5ZfwY5dFfzfVZzLPsJQ2RyqHUscwgnJA== Cancel-Lock:
> sha1:HGT95mkDt9RTs0OtiujFVnhZVvI= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19
> (Windows/20081209) Xref: Hurricane-Charley uk.media.tv.misc:605354
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:55:20 UTC (textbe01-phx)
A forgery and not from me.
It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
day out here though.
Ophelia
Of course it is dear.
Ophelia
That is Ms Ophelia to you Barker! Many people here know exactly who I am:)
You just hate it that you don't:)
Ophelia
ROFLMAO
Mary
> A forgery and not from me.
>
> It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
> day out here though.
I agree, it's pretty pathetic that people have to hide behind false
identities when making such accusations.
Why can't they be big enough to post under their real name? What have they
got to hide?
Mary
Mary
news:5digq45rp2jcsr46s...@4ax.com...
Oh, and BTW, it's "Mrs Mary" to you. Or is it "Miss Mary"? I can never
remember.
A. J. Moss
> I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
I'm not entirely sure why you're asking here, Mary.
Have a look straight down. That thing sticking out beneath
you is something that's commonly referred to as a wrist.
Follow it a bit further and you'll come across an arm,
at the other end of which is the rest of Chris Barker.
He'll tell you all you need to know about this newsgroup.
Mary
Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you trying to
bully me now?
not a bully
> Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you trying to
> bully me now?
I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a bully. Mary what
BTW?
Mary
I am not Chris Barker.
Mary
> "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:qXXpl.47359$cI2....@newsfe09.iad...
>
> > Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you trying
> > to bully me now?
>
> Mary what BTW?
Why do you need to know? So you can use it to bully me?
not a bully
Only if it's a funny name. Plus I want to try and find out where you work
and look for photos of you by entering your name into Google.
You don't mind do you?
Mary
> "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Q1Ypl.86232$xK6....@newsfe12.iad...
> > not a bully wrote:
> >
> >>"Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qXXpl.47359$cI2....@newsfe09.iad...
> > >
> >>> Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you
> trying >>> to bully me now?
> > >
> > > Mary what BTW?
> >
> > Why do you need to know? So you can use it to bully me?
>
> Only if it's a funny name. Plus I want to try and find out where you
> work and look for photos of you by entering your name into Google.
> You don't mind do you?
I'm not a bully, so I shall not be telling you. Bullies deserve all
they get. Including losing their jobs and being sued.
Mary
I hope you're not accusing me of lying Ophelia. I'd be happy to take it
further if you are. I won't bow to bullies.
not a bully
> I hope you're not accusing me of lying Ophelia. I'd be happy to take it
> further if you are. I won't bow to bullies.
Very wise. They might punch you in the top of the head if you did.
Mary
I hope for your sake that's not a threat.
not a bully
Nope, I'll leave the threats of physical violence to your mate.
Halmyre
*I'm* Mary, and so is my wife!
--
Halmyre
That's you that is.
williemeikle
Whoosh! That's the sound of a joke going over your head that is.
--
Willie
Ophelia
> On Feb 27, 6:59 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Presumably you can't be that busy yourself "providing" for your own
>>> family if you can spend so much time posting to UMTM.
>>
>> That must indeed be the case.
>> Cheers
>> Jeff
>
> Unlikely though, given that there are is no beginning to your talents.
> I mean in all seriousness, what respectable job can you possibly do
> that allows to spend the whole day posting to UMTM? Telesales from
> home?
I know. It is disgraceful that he wastes his money on holidays to Peru:(
> Well, along with seeking cures for premature baldness. ;)
Only premature?? :(((((((((
Ophelia
You are not new around here then?
Ophelia
Hellup me. hellup me... I is askeeered!
Ophelia
That is a lie!!!!!!!!
*I* am Mary and so is *my* wife!
Mary
I'd like to clear up once and for all that I'm the real Mary and wish I
hadn't become involved, just a quick look at Mr Barkers postings this
last week has shown me that he is in need of professional help.
Mary
You aren't Mary either - how you have hijacked my account I don't know!
Tony
PMSL! Oh do fuck off. The only nutters here who threaten to sue people are
Barker and Ophelia.
JR
> Mary didn't write:
>>
>>> I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>>>
>>> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
>> and Mr Barker is in fact a troublemaker, his offline stalking is
>> disturbing . He is obviously quite disturbed in the head .
>
> A forgery and not from me.
>
> It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
> day out here though.
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Fake Mary please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Fake Mary please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..
Y'all act like you never seen a mad person before
Jaws all on the floor like Chris, like Selma just flounced in the door
and started whoopin his ass worse than before
they first were divorce, throwin his (antique, hand-made) furniture
over(Ahh!)
It's the return of the... "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,
he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"
And Dr. Col said... nothing you idiots!
Dr. Col's dead, he folded like a cheap table! (Ha-ha!)
Feminist women love malcontents
[*vocal turntable: chigga chigga chigga*]
"Fake Mary, I'm sick of him
Look at her, walkin around editing her you-know-what
Publishing you-know-who," "Yeah, but he's a writer though!"
Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in Alan Hope's bedroom
Sometimes, I wanna get on TV and shout abuse, but can't
but it's cool for Reggie Oliver to cut me loose
[Chorus: Barker(repeat 2X)]
'Cause I'm Fake Mary, no I'm the real Mary
All you other Fake Marys are just malcontenting
So won't the real Fake Mary please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?
Sofa - Spud
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:31:45 +0000, Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, sipst...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 7:18 pm, Shrike <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
>>>>> Why is it "Mr Barker" to her then, Barker?
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jeff
>>>> For the same reason that it's "Mr Barker" to you, Lawrence. Because I
>>>> don't like either of you and you should be respectful towards your
>>>> betters.
>>> Oh dear.
>> Good heavens, even G DAEB has been stunned into brevity!
>
> Something we will remember for the rest of our umtm lives.
Put G DAEB into google - it's hilarious!
Col
"Sofa - Spud" <comfy...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:go9p39$3cp$3...@news.motzarella.org...
LOL!
At leaat his formatting is better.
Col
Ed
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
> >> U2FsdGVkX19gjI/MPGzsBZEzlycAwV8GldNQIEp7c4Hfdd4f5r+mftcHnzjLbToTXUJEKs
> >> ZhqjY4akVUcpQhSo+KrMoyvWIcKynyaPUUO/wSqBB3cDgR7+O9i8yVh8MrQO+n5AhkhNMc
> >> ZGnweLmQbA== X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to
> >> ab...@motzarella.org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb
> >> 2009 19:55:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <q1Wpl.47$FF1...@newsfe20.iad>
> >> X-Auth-Sender:
> >> U2FsdGVkX1/taPl0MQOrkh5ZfwY5dFfzfVZzLPsJQ2RyqHUscwgnJA== Cancel-Lock:
> >> sha1:HGT95mkDt9RTs0OtiujFVnhZVvI= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19
> >> (Windows/20081209) Xref: Hurricane-Charley uk.media.tv.misc:605354
> >> X-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:55:20 UTC (textbe01-phx)
>
> >> Mary wrote:
> >> > I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>
> >> > He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
>
> >> Actually I've read all the archives and now realise I was quite wrong
> >> and Mr Barker is in fact a troublemaker, his offline stalking is
> >> disturbing . He is obviously quite disturbed in the head .
>
> >A forgery and not from me.
>
> >It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
> >day out here though.
>
> --
>
> Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fuck me. Have you lot been at the Vim?
Sock puppets, trolls and a long conversation between two people not
actually called mary! It's more than I can take on a Friday night.
Shrike
You don't get out much, do you? Not since the 1990s by the sound of
it.
PS. Don't mention my wife or friends by name again or else you'll have
cause to regret it. Seriously, last warning.
gs
> On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>
> > "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e47d95f0-789e-42a7...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
>
> > Why is it "Mr Barker" to her then, Barker?
> > Cheers
> > Jeff
>
> For the same reason that it's "Mr Barker" to you, Lawrence. Because I
> don't like either of you and you should be respectful towards your
> betters.
No, you are a mister because no one would ever give you a knighthood
and you are far too old to be called master Barker (though it sounds
more appropriate).
Mike Plowman
>Mary wrote:
>> Mary didn't write:
>>>
>>> Mary wrote:
>>>> I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>>>>
>>>> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
>>> Actually I've read all the archives and now realise I was quite wrong
>>> and Mr Barker is in fact a troublemaker, his offline stalking is
>>> disturbing . He is obviously quite disturbed in the head .
>>
>> A forgery and not from me.
>>
>> It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
>> day out here though.
>
>May I have your attention please?
>May I have your attention please?
>Will the real Fake Mary please stand up?
>I repeat, will the real Fake Mary please stand up?
>We're gonna have a problem here..
Applause!!!!
--
Mike Plowman
Mary
There you go again, you start all this trouble then when others take the
mickey out of you you don't like it. Often you've mentioned other
peoples friends and family , just last week you posted links to someones
postcode and address.
I seriously think you are mentally ill and ought to take a break from
usenet for a while as you are ruining it for many others, I was shocked
by how long you had been acting like this - I've found posts in the
archive from 2004 where you are ranting and raving and making trouble
including threatening people.
I'd like to spend more time here but I won't if all there is to see is
you starting new threads annoying everyone who appear to get on very
well when you aren't here.
JR
From the man who quotes The Cure - not been out since the 80's I assume?
> PS. Don't mention my wife or friends by name again or else you'll have
> cause to regret it. Seriously, last warning.
You nearly had me there, then I noticed the word 'friends'. As if!
AC
"Halmyre" <no....@this.address> wrote in message
news:MPG.241262986...@news.tesco.net...
> In article <qXXpl.47359$cI2....@newsfe09.iad>, m...@privacy.net says...
>> Mary didn't write:
>>
>> > "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> > news:wDXpl.47776$uG1....@newsfe16.iad...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day
>> > > in, day out here though.
>> >
>> > identities when making such accusations. Why can't they be big
>> > enough to post under their real name? What have they got to hide?
>>
>> Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you trying to
>> bully me now?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Halmyre
>
> That's you that is.
Im Mary too.
AC
AC
>I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>
> He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
Top class thread, people. Most enjoyable.
AC
Ed
>
> >Sock puppets, trolls and a long conversation between two people not
> >actually called mary! It's more than I can take on a Friday night.
>
>
> --
> luv
> Spartacus- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
eh?
Ophelia
and so is my budgie.
Alan Hope
>I mean in all seriousness, what respectable job can you possibly do
>that allows to spend the whole day posting to UMTM? Telesales from
>home?
What respectable job do you do, Barmy? Bear in mind while Jeff is only
posting to Usenet (as am I, and as are you) you're also writing to
people's employers asking to have them sacked (not this time, again,
sorry old chap).
I find the funniest thing about this is your complete inability to see
the irony in your own situation. Jeff accuses you of dossing around,
which you've effectively admitted (you have no job; you sell stuff on
eBay = dossing at home online). You spring back with your rapier wit
and accuse him of posting too much.
Don't you also post too much? Even leaving aside the endless futile
(shitcanned) emails?
Can you not see what an utter sad cunt you are?
Alan Hope
>My wife has a degree, a professional occupation and can speak two
>languages fluently.
That'll be why she works in a shop.
Alan Hope
>On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e47d95f0-789e-42a7...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
>>
>> Why is it "Mr Barker" to her then, Barker?
>> Cheers
>> Jeff
>
>For the same reason that it's "Mr Barker" to you, Lawrence. Because I
>don't like either of you and you should be respectful towards your
>betters.
Funny how the only people who oblige are the ones you created
yourself.
Mary
>Mary didn't write:
>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
>> U2FsdGVkX19gjI/MPGzsBZEzlycAwV8GldNQIEp7c4Hfdd4f5r+mftcHnzjLbToTXUJEKs
>> ZhqjY4akVUcpQhSo+KrMoyvWIcKynyaPUUO/wSqBB3cDgR7+O9i8yVh8MrQO+n5AhkhNMc
>> ZGnweLmQbA== X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to
>> ab...@motzarella.org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb
>> 2009 19:55:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <q1Wpl.47$FF1...@newsfe20.iad>
>> X-Auth-Sender:
>> U2FsdGVkX1/taPl0MQOrkh5ZfwY5dFfzfVZzLPsJQ2RyqHUscwgnJA== Cancel-Lock:
>> sha1:HGT95mkDt9RTs0OtiujFVnhZVvI= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19
>> (Windows/20081209) Xref: Hurricane-Charley uk.media.tv.misc:605354
>> X-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:55:20 UTC (textbe01-phx)
>>
>> Mary wrote:
>> > I admire Chris and the way he deals with the bullies here.
>> >
>> > He's a good man, why don't you leave him alone?
>>
>> Actually I've read all the archives and now realise I was quite wrong
>> and Mr Barker is in fact a troublemaker, his offline stalking is
>> disturbing . He is obviously quite disturbed in the head .
>
>A forgery and not from me.
>
>It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on day in,
>day out here though.
I never wrote this, did I Mr. Barmy sir.
Alan Hope
>not a bully wrote:
>
>> "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:qXXpl.47359$cI2....@newsfe09.iad...
>>
>> > Mary is my real name and I have nothing to hide. Why are you trying
>> > to bully me now?
>>
>> Mary what BTW?
>
>Why do you need to know? So you can use it to bully me?
Do you swallow?
Alan Hope
>I'm not a bully, so I shall not be telling you. Bullies deserve all
>they get. Including losing their jobs and being sued.
Being sued for the well-known offence of "being a bully said Mr
Barmy".
Schrodinger
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:EHbql.31937$m93....@newsfe18.ams2...
Funniest bit of newsgroup posting I've seen in quite a while.
Shrike
You don't get out much, do you?
NB. That was rhetorical.
Enzo Matrix
> On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.lawre...@orange.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Shrike" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e47d95f0-789e-42a7...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> PS. That's "Mr Barker" to you, "Ophelia".
>>
>> Why is it "Mr Barker" to her then, Barker?
>> Cheers
>> Jeff
>
> For the same reason that it's "Mr Barker" to you, Lawrence. Because I
> don't like either of you and you should be respectful towards your
> betters.
Ophelia and Jeff don't *have* any betters. And even if they did, you
wouldn't have a catinell's chance of being one of 'em, Barker.
Did you hear what I called you, "Barker"? Wot you gonna do about it, huh?
Whinge that I glared at you over a hedge?
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Mary
> "Mary" <mike.p...@mydomain.net> wrote in message
> news:5digq45rp2jcsr46s...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:05:51 +0100, "Mary" <jeff.l...@orange.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mary" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> A forgery and not from me.
>>>>
>>>> It's a good example of the bullying of good people that goes on
>>>> day in, day out here though.
>>>
>>> identities when making such accusations.
>>> Why can't they be big enough to post under their real name? What
>>> have they got to hide?
>>
>
> Oh, and BTW, it's "Mrs Mary" to you. Or is it "Miss Mary"? I can never
> remember.
I prefer "Proud Mary"
--
Mary
Big wheels keep on turnin'
Schrodinger
Mr Barker, I don't know who you are or why all this has blown up to the
extent it has. I have to say, however, that the many posts from various
"Marys" was comedy gold and as good as anything you might see on TV. It
reminded me of the scene in Airplane as the plane takes off with Captains
Over and Roger and Engineer whatever it was.
For you to a) ask the question you did and then b) patronise me to say it
was a rhetorical question indicates that there may be some substance in what
the others on here are saying. Certainly, we know that several of the
people that are annoyed with you seem entirely sane and have even met others
on this NG in real life without needing a pretext of some sort of twisted
revenge to do so.
As my late father used to say; when I want the monkey, I'll rattle the
chain.
Ian F.
news:rfEql.23613$dm3....@newsfe27.ams2...
> the scene in Airplane as the plane takes off with Captains Over and Roger
> and Engineer whatever it was.
Simon: Gentlemen, I'd like you to meet your captain, Captain Oveur.
Clarence Oveur: Gentlemen, welcome aboard.
Simon: Captain, your navigator, Mr. Unger, and your first officer, Mr. Dunn.
Clarence Oveur: Unger.
Unger: Oveur.
Dunn: Oveur.
Clarence Oveur: Dunn. Gentlemen, let's get to work.
Simon: Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in the Air Force?
Unger: Not directly. Technically, Dunn was under Oveur and I was under Dunn.
Dunn: Yep.
Simon: So, Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger.
Unger: Yep.
Clarence Oveur: That's right. Dunn was over Unger and I was over Dunn.
Unger: So, you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was
under Dunn.
Clarence Oveur: Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.
LOL
Ian
The dog from that film you saw
when i read C Barker i almost can imagine horror author clive barker has
paid us a visit.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
Alan Hope
>when i read C Barker i almost can imagine horror author clive barker has
>paid us a visit.
Except that Clive Barker is successful, is a star writer in his field,
and probably isn't a total cunt.
Shrike
Unlike the unknown "journalist" Alan Hope, who couldn't get a job
processing classified ads on the Reigate Gazette.
Alan Hope
>On Mar 2, 5:59 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The dog from that film you saw goes:
>> >when i read C Barker i almost can imagine horror author clive barker has
>> >paid us a visit.
>> Except that Clive Barker is successful, is a star writer in his field,
>> and probably isn't a total cunt.
>Unlike the unknown "journalist" Alan Hope, who couldn't get a job
>processing classified ads on the Reigate Gazette.
But I have a job, remember? The one you tried to get me thrown out of?
Did you forget?
Shrike
No one's trying to get you thrown out of your job, Hopeless. Decisions
like that are wholly down to employers.
No, all that's happening is that your employer is being alerted at the
very highest level to your usenet behaviour because of its personally
offensive nature and libellous nature. If you are posting these
offensive comments on "works time" - or indeed if the comments reflect
poorly upon your professionalism or the entity that is "Flanders
Today" - then your employer might take issue with you. Ultimately,
it's their call.
Now, I suspect you are trying to complain about the fact that I have
bothered (I prefer 'dared') to contact your employer. On that matter I
couldn't care less what you think. Your arguments against "taking
fings out of usenet" are very weak given your offensive and abusive
behaviour, to say nothing of the utter hypocrisy of those you ally
yourself with, who delight in intrusive off-usenet stalking. You post
extremely unpleasant allegations in here - a very public place what
with the comments posted routinely showing up in Google searches - yet
you whine and squeal like a stuck pig when anyone tries to cause
trouble for you.
You're a bully, Hopeless, and a very stupid one, because although this
has been explained to you a dozen times at least, you still can't
quite get your head around the key issue, which is "Nemo me impune
lacessit." By all means disagree with my views on politics or
television, but when you start calling me a c***, or posting malicious
libels about adultery and paedohilia, all supposedly in the name of UK
media discussion, then not only have you picked upon the wrong person,
but you have made yourself highly vulnerable to complaints to various
parties inc your ISP, employer and any other public organisation that
you are involved in.
Please don't waste your breath boring us all rigid with your views on
why it's OK for you to post unpleasant allegations about someone on
the internet while it's wrong for the maligned victim to seek redress;
we've heard it all before and it's boring twaddle. Ditto for your
angry bluffs warning me against filing complaints with the relevant
third parties: by no stretch of the imagination can this be deemed
harrassment. You're bullshitting and everybody can see that.
There's only two ways this thing is going to go. Either you carry on
being abusive, libellous and aggressive and end up losing your job,
reputation and sanity; or you acknowledge that your behaviour has been
wholly unacceptable, and you remedy that (I would suggest apologising
to me and anyone else you've offended in addition to reassuring your
employer that you are seeking counselling by way of resolving your
abusive internet behaviour). Indeed, the world loves a reformed
sinner, so you could even emerge from the ordeal with much
credibility.
Alternatively you carry on as before. You'll be toxically unemployable
within a very short space of time; you might end up with a criminal
record as a result of being cautioned informally for your abusive and
libellous posting activities; and you'll be one step closer to a
miserable wino lifestyle in the gutter, ranting on bitterly about it
being your right to free speech to call everyone a c***.
CB
Alan Hope
>On Mar 3, 12:17 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shrike goes:
>> >On Mar 2, 5:59 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The dog from that film you saw goes:
>> >> >when i read C Barker i almost can imagine horror author clive barker has
>> >> >paid us a visit.
>> >> Except that Clive Barker is successful, is a star writer in his field,
>> >> and probably isn't a total cunt.
>> >Unlike the unknown "journalist" Alan Hope, who couldn't get a job
>> >processing classified ads on the Reigate Gazette.
>> But I have a job, remember? The one you tried to get me thrown out of?
>> Did you forget?
>No one's trying to get you thrown out of your job, Hopeless. Decisions
>like that are wholly down to employers.
Pathetic. At least have the courage of your convictions in your creepy
stalking, Barmy.
>No, all that's happening is that your employer is being alerted at the
>very highest level to your usenet behaviour because of its personally
>offensive nature and libellous nature.
If it's libellous, sue me. If it's offensive, tough shit. In either
case, it has nothing to do with my employer.
>If you are posting these
>offensive comments on "works time" - or indeed if the comments reflect
>poorly upon your professionalism or the entity that is "Flanders
>Today" - then your employer might take issue with you. Ultimately,
>it's their call.
No. Ultimately it's none of their business. I don't have "works time"
whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm a freelance contributor and
editor, as you've been told many times. It's no affair of yours
whether I'm working on their time, just as it's none of your business
how it might affect the "entity" that is Flanders Today. Your only aim
in this whole matter is to cause trouble. You know you haven't a leg
to stand on legally, and that in any case Fatima wouldn't give you the
money to pursue your ridiculous vendetta. So you've decided to go down
this poison-pen road instead.
It won't work, Barmy. I've told you now and you need to get it through
your head: what I do in my own time is my own business.
>Now, I suspect you are trying to complain about the fact that I have
>bothered (I prefer 'dared') to contact your employer. On that matter I
>couldn't care less what you think. Your arguments against "taking
>fings out of usenet" are very weak given your offensive and abusive
>behaviour, to say nothing of the utter hypocrisy of those you ally
>yourself with, who delight in intrusive off-usenet stalking. You post
>extremely unpleasant allegations in here - a very public place what
>with the comments posted routinely showing up in Google searches - yet
>you whine and squeal like a stuck pig when anyone tries to cause
>trouble for you.
I've warned you that you're heading for very big trouble for yourself
if you continue. That's all in the Google archive as well, so that
when you inevitably go too far and feel the hand of Plod on your
collar, you won't be able to claim it came as a surprise.
I've also made it clear that you're on a hiding to nothing with your
campaign to get me sacked. Not only am I a more valuable asset to my
employer than the goodwill of some anonymous nutter (for the
information of the rest of the newsgroup, Barmy's complaints come from
the email of a Mr Derachiel, and are signed C Barker, so that a
recipient is able at first glance to tell what kind of flake-job
they're dealing with) with a vague complaint about someone he doesn't
know, couched in ignorant threats to sue the editor, and write to an
MEP. I'm also, as I explained, protected by Belgian law on the
protection of private life. Since my Usenet postings have nothing to
do with Flanders Today, Flanders Today is obliged by law to have
nothing to do with my Usenet postings.
>You're a bully, Hopeless, and a very stupid one, because although this
>has been explained to you a dozen times at least, you still can't
>quite get your head around the key issue, which is "Nemo me impune
>lacessit."
You're mistaken. I've been insulting you for years with impunity, and
I intend to go on doing so.
>By all means disagree with my views on politics or
>television, but when you start calling me a c***, or posting malicious
>libels about adultery and paedohilia, all supposedly in the name of UK
>media discussion, then not only have you picked upon the wrong person,
>but you have made yourself highly vulnerable to complaints to various
>parties inc your ISP, employer and any other public organisation that
>you are involved in.
We'll see about that, when I'm still here thumbing my nose at you in
several years time as you continue vainly to cause trouble for me.
I'll call you a cunt when I feel like it, and there's not a thing you
can do to prevent me, okay?
>Please don't waste your breath boring us all rigid with your views on
>why it's OK for you to post unpleasant allegations about someone on
>the internet while it's wrong for the maligned victim to seek redress;
>we've heard it all before and it's boring twaddle. Ditto for your
>angry bluffs warning me against filing complaints with the relevant
>third parties: by no stretch of the imagination can this be deemed
>harrassment. You're bullshitting and everybody can see that.
They'll see very clearly if you continue. Don't bother to discuss it
with me. I know the situation and you don't. Discuss it with one of
your saloon-bar lawyers. Perhaps they might explain to you that the
law in one country is very often different from the law in another.
>There's only two ways this thing is going to go. Either you carry on
>being abusive, libellous and aggressive and end up losing your job,
>reputation and sanity; or you acknowledge that your behaviour has been
>wholly unacceptable, and you remedy that (I would suggest apologising
>to me and anyone else you've offended in addition to reassuring your
>employer that you are seeking counselling by way of resolving your
>abusive internet behaviour). Indeed, the world loves a reformed
>sinner, so you could even emerge from the ordeal with much
>credibility.
I have a third option which I prefer: you can go and fuck yourself.
I'll carry on posting what I like, and you'll shut up, lick it up off
the floor and swallow. Got that?
>Alternatively you carry on as before. You'll be toxically unemployable
>within a very short space of time; you might end up with a criminal
>record as a result of being cautioned informally for your abusive and
>libellous posting activities;
A criminal record from being cautioned informally? By whom?
>and you'll be one step closer to a
>miserable wino lifestyle in the gutter, ranting on bitterly about it
>being your right to free speech to call everyone a c***.
See above. You're the loser here. You're just going to have to get
used to it. And every time you show your face will be a reminder to
everyone of how you tried as hard as you could to get rid of me
(apologise indeed! as if!) but failed. I'll spare no effort in keeping
newcomers informed, as well. Three attempts, and no score. Next time
you try, you're going down. Quite how you can show your face is
anyone's guess. Severe delusions as part of your illness, I expect.
That, on top of the fact that you're an unpleasant, despicable and
really pretty stupid cunt.
Shrike
> Shrike goes:
>
> >On Mar 3, 12:17 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Shrike goes:
> >> >On Mar 2, 5:59 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The dog from that film you saw goes:
> >> >> >when i read C Barker i almost can imagine horror author clive barker has
> >> >> >paid us a visit.
> >> >> Except that Clive Barker is successful, is a star writer in his field,
> >> >> and probably isn't a total cunt.
> >> >Unlike the unknown "journalist" Alan Hope, who couldn't get a job
> >> >processing classified ads on the Reigate Gazette.
> >> But I have a job, remember? The one you tried to get me thrown out of?
> >> Did you forget?
> >No one's trying to get you thrown out of your job, Hopeless. Decisions
> >like that are wholly down to employers.
>
> Pathetic. At least have the courage of your convictions in your creepy
> stalking, Barmy.
>
Oh, I don't think I lack courage. What's more, I'm right: I can't get
you sacked, you can.
> >No, all that's happening is that your employer is being alerted at the
> >very highest level to your usenet behaviour because of its personally
> >offensive nature and libellous nature.
>
> If it's libellous, sue me. If it's offensive, tough shit. In either
> case, it has nothing to do with my employer.
>
It's very expensive and time-consuming to pursue internet libels,
which is why I favour more practical guerilla tactics. Besides, if
you've been posting from work, or when you are meant to be working -
or even if you bring your employer's good name into disrepute by sheer
association - then it most certainly does have something to do with
your employer.
And let's not forget your constant snipes about Reggie Oliver and the
various writing & editorial projects I may be working on. If you view
my work as a legitimate target, then you're a hypocrite for crying
foul when your own employment status is challenged.
[That's two-nil to me so far.]
> >If you are posting these
> >offensive comments on "works time" - or indeed if the comments reflect
> >poorly upon your professionalism or the entity that is "Flanders
> >Today" - then your employer might take issue with you. Ultimately,
> >it's their call.
>
> No. Ultimately it's none of their business. I don't have "works time"
> whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm a freelance contributor and
> editor, as you've been told many times. It's no affair of yours
> whether I'm working on their time, just as it's none of your business
> how it might affect the "entity" that is Flanders Today. Your only aim
> in this whole matter is to cause trouble. You know you haven't a leg
> to stand on legally, and that in any case Fatima wouldn't give you the
> money to pursue your ridiculous vendetta. So you've decided to go down
> this poison-pen road instead.
>
Oh, how you spend your time IS my affair, because you've made it so.
You've posted offensive and libellous comments about me and I will be
avenged.
As for your comment about "poison-pens" it's pretty obvious that your
posts are amongst the most venomous in usenet. You may think you that
you are exercising your right to 'free speech' by spewing out
malicious allegations about adultery and sexual perversion, but it's a
pretty clear-cut case of poison-pensmanship to everybody else.
[3:0]
> It won't work, Barmy. I've told you now and you need to get it through
> your head: what I do in my own time is my own business.
>
I'm afraid it isn't. I'm calling the shots here: your work is most
definitely on limits.
Get used to it or go away.
> >Now, I suspect you are trying to complain about the fact that I have
> >bothered (I prefer 'dared') to contact your employer. On that matter I
> >couldn't care less what you think. Your arguments against "taking
> >fings out of usenet" are very weak given your offensive and abusive
> >behaviour, to say nothing of the utter hypocrisy of those you ally
> >yourself with, who delight in intrusive off-usenet stalking. You post
> >extremely unpleasant allegations in here - a very public place what
> >with the comments posted routinely showing up in Google searches - yet
> >you whine and squeal like a stuck pig when anyone tries to cause
> >trouble for you.
>
> I've warned you that you're heading for very big trouble for yourself
> if you continue. That's all in the Google archive as well, so that
> when you inevitably go too far and feel the hand of Plod on your
> collar, you won't be able to claim it came as a surprise.
>
You are echoing arguments John Pelan made two or three years ago.
Since then he's lost his job, seen his publishing business fold, moved
from fashionable Seattle to the Texan heat of Rio Rancho, and acquired
an unenviable reputation as a swindler and liar after defrauding many
customers and fellow writers.
> I've also made it clear that you're on a hiding to nothing with your
> campaign to get me sacked. Not only am I a more valuable asset to my
> employer than the goodwill of some anonymous nutter (for the
> information of the rest of the newsgroup, Barmy's complaints come from
> the email of a Mr Derachiel, and are signed C Barker, so that a
> recipient is able at first glance to tell what kind of flake-job
> they're dealing with) with a vague complaint about someone he doesn't
> know, couched in ignorant threats to sue the editor, and write to an
> MEP. I'm also, as I explained, protected by Belgian law on the
> protection of private life. Since my Usenet postings have nothing to
> do with Flanders Today, Flanders Today is obliged by law to have
> nothing to do with my Usenet postings.
>
Methinks the bully doth protest too much.
I couldn't give a damn about any of that: you libelled me and you
unpleasantly name-checked my wife and you will pay for that.
> >You're a bully, Hopeless, and a very stupid one, because although this
> >has been explained to you a dozen times at least, you still can't
> >quite get your head around the key issue, which is "Nemo me impune
> >lacessit."
>
> You're mistaken. I've been insulting you for years with impunity, and
> I intend to go on doing so.
>
Yet you're the one with a job to lose, not me.
> >By all means disagree with my views on politics or
> >television, but when you start calling me a c***, or posting malicious
> >libels about adultery and paedohilia, all supposedly in the name of UK
> >media discussion, then not only have you picked upon the wrong person,
> >but you have made yourself highly vulnerable to complaints to various
> >parties inc your ISP, employer and any other public organisation that
> >you are involved in.
>
> We'll see about that, when I'm still here thumbing my nose at you in
> several years time as you continue vainly to cause trouble for me.
>
> I'll call you a cunt when I feel like it, and there's not a thing you
> can do to prevent me, okay?
>
Oh yes there is.
You're in clear breach of IP protocols and your behaviour will almost
certainly embarrass and irritate any employer foolish enough to employ
you.
> >Please don't waste your breath boring us all rigid with your views on
> >why it's OK for you to post unpleasant allegations about someone on
> >the internet while it's wrong for the maligned victim to seek redress;
> >we've heard it all before and it's boring twaddle. Ditto for your
> >angry bluffs warning me against filing complaints with the relevant
> >third parties: by no stretch of the imagination can this be deemed
> >harrassment. You're bullshitting and everybody can see that.
>
> They'll see very clearly if you continue. Don't bother to discuss it
> with me. I know the situation and you don't. Discuss it with one of
> your saloon-bar lawyers. Perhaps they might explain to you that the
> law in one country is very often different from the law in another.
>
Yak yak yak.
Enough talk: bring it on. You go contact "Plod" and ask him to arrest
me for objecting to your malicious internet behaviour; you go prod
your employer into filing a complaint re harrassment when they haven't
even once objected to my forwarding them evidence of your online
antics.
Stop talking tough and go and actually do something, you bullshitting
blowhard.
> >There's only two ways this thing is going to go. Either you carry on
> >being abusive, libellous and aggressive and end up losing your job,
> >reputation and sanity; or you acknowledge that your behaviour has been
> >wholly unacceptable, and you remedy that (I would suggest apologising
> >to me and anyone else you've offended in addition to reassuring your
> >employer that you are seeking counselling by way of resolving your
> >abusive internet behaviour). Indeed, the world loves a reformed
> >sinner, so you could even emerge from the ordeal with much
> >credibility.
>
> I have a third option which I prefer: you can go and fuck yourself.
> I'll carry on posting what I like, and you'll shut up, lick it up off
> the floor and swallow. Got that?
>
More projection, Mr Hope? What with your self-professed intimate
knowledge of paedo terms, the mind boggles at what you get up to at
weekends.
> >Alternatively you carry on as before. You'll be toxically unemployable
> >within a very short space of time; you might end up with a criminal
> >record as a result of being cautioned informally for your abusive and
> >libellous posting activities;
>
> A criminal record from being cautioned informally? By whom?
>
I'm not referring to your visible record that you're allowed to know
about.
> >and you'll be one step closer to a
> >miserable wino lifestyle in the gutter, ranting on bitterly about it
> >being your right to free speech to call everyone a c***.
>
> See above. You're the loser here. You're just going to have to get
> used to it. And every time you show your face will be a reminder to
> everyone of how you tried as hard as you could to get rid of me
> (apologise indeed! as if!) but failed. I'll spare no effort in keeping
> newcomers informed, as well. Three attempts, and no score. Next time
> you try, you're going down. Quite how you can show your face is
> anyone's guess. Severe delusions as part of your illness, I expect.
>
> That, on top of the fact that you're an unpleasant, despicable and
> really pretty stupid cunt.
>
> --
> AHhttp://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
I make that a sound thrashing, about ten-nil in my favour.
Stop being a bore, Mr Hope. You're being slapped-down because you
stepped out of line. If you can't take your punishment like a man then
you shouldn't have spoken out of turn in the first place. Mike
Plowman's comment about a 'slit eyed bastard' chinaman was racist;
your insinuations re adultery and paedophilia are libellous; etc etc.
You can bleat and whine and bluff and threaten all you like, but when
you treat somebody with such disregard you can have nobody else to
blame but yourself.
CB
Schrodinger
>> See above. You're the loser here. You're just going to have to get
>> used to it. And every time you show your face will be a reminder to
>> everyone of how you tried as hard as you could to get rid of me
>> (apologise indeed! as if!) but failed. I'll spare no effort in
>> keeping newcomers informed, as well. Three attempts, and no score.
>> Next time you try, you're going down. Quite how you can show your
>> face is anyone's guess. Severe delusions as part of your illness, I
>> expect.
>>
>> That, on top of the fact that you're an unpleasant, despicable and
>>
>> --
>> AHhttp://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
>
> I make that a sound thrashing, about ten-nil in my favour.
>
> Stop being a bore, Mr Hope. You're being slapped-down because you
> stepped out of line. If you can't take your punishment like a man then
> you shouldn't have spoken out of turn in the first place. Mike
> Plowman's comment about a 'slit eyed bastard' chinaman was racist;
> your insinuations re adultery and paedophilia are libellous; etc etc.
> You can bleat and whine and bluff and threaten all you like, but when
> you treat somebody with such disregard you can have nobody else to
> blame but yourself.
Two monks were strolling by a stream on their way home to the monastery.
They were startled by the sound of a young woman in a bridal gown, sitting
by the stream, crying softly. Tears rolled down her cheeks as she gazed
across the water. She needed to cross to get to her wedding, but she was
fearful that doing so might ruin her beautiful handmade gown.
In this particular sect, monks were prohibited from touching women. But one
monk was filled with compassion for the bride. Ignoring the sanction, he
hoisted the woman on his shoulders and carried her across the
stream--assisting her journey and saving her gown. She smiled and bowed with
gratitude as he noisily splashed his way back across the stream to rejoin
his companion.
The second monk was livid. "How could you do that?" he scolded. "You know we
are forbidden even to touch a woman, much less pick one up and carry her
around!"
The offending monk listened in silence to a stern lecture that lasted all
the way back to the monastery. His mind wandered as he felt the warm
sunshine and listened to the singing birds. After returning to the
monastery, he fell asleep for a few hours. He was jostled and awakened in
the middle of the night by his fellow monk. "How could you carry that
woman?" his agitated friend cried out. "Someone else could have helped her
across the stream. You were a bad monk!"
"What woman?" the tired monk inquired groggily.
"Don't you even remember? That woman you carried across the stream," his
colleague snapped.
"Oh, her," laughed the sleepy monk. "I only carried her across the stream.
You carried her all the way back to the monastery."
Shrike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, UMTM has often struck me as being very much like a monastery,
what with Brother Plowman's desperate attempts to keep his Vow Of
Silence, or Alan Hope's energetically pursued Vow Of Profanity.
[Commotion from the shadows.]
Ah yes, who could forget you, Brother Salva-Spud, with your dashing
good looks and your easy command of a language no one else speaks?
Then there is Brother Lawrence, Keeper Of The Holy Video Recorder. How
the small children like to dance for him!
I always thought that poisonous words would be our undoing.
CB
(With a knowing nod to Umberto Eco)
middl...@googlemail.com
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, UMTM has often struck me as being very much like a monastery,
Well you certainly have some unpleasant habits.
Alan Hope
>It's very expensive and time-consuming to pursue internet libels,
>which is why I favour more practical guerilla tactics. Besides, if
>you've been posting from work, or when you are meant to be working -
>or even if you bring your employer's good name into disrepute by sheer
>association - then it most certainly does have something to do with
>your employer.
You're quite wrong, but do keep on thinking that. That way you're
bound to make your next fatal mistake.
Alan Hope
>Enough talk: bring it on. You go contact "Plod" and ask him to arrest
>me for objecting to your malicious internet behaviour; you go prod
>your employer into filing a complaint re harrassment when they haven't
>even once objected to my forwarding them evidence of your online
>antics.
No prodding required. The suggestion to bring in the lawyers didn't
come from me.
Better get your affairs in order and arrange some afternoon
child-care.