Micheal Jackson pronounced dead
Bazza
§ireßird & $ir Vivor
> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
That's nasty!!
There's no proof that he was, only rumour and false accusations from
people who saw him as a milch cow. At least he's now free of the
rumours, accusations and spiteful comments like yours!
More parents molest their children than strangers and that *is* a
proven fact!
Gareth
>> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
>
> That's nasty!!
>
> There's no proof that he was, only rumour and false accusations from
> people who saw him as a milch cow. At least he's now free of the
> rumours, accusations and spiteful comments like yours!
>
> More parents molest their children than strangers and that *is* a
> proven fact!
Michael Jackson was a parent too.
see pic of him here taking care of his child...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2493513.stm
--
Gareth ( email address invalid ) .....
Frederick Williams
>
> �ire�ird & $ir Vivor wrote in message :
He was a pop singer (I think?) so one shouldn't expect too much.
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
linedancer
"Bazza" <ba...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ttle1....@news.alt.net...
> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
That is a horrible comment :-(
He was not exactly a Gary Glitter in any way !
He was exploited by the family of the youth he allegedly molested who shared
his bed, probably willingly.
He was a brilliant performer, what a shame he didn't make his comeback tour
over here.
Geoff. Hayward
>
>nothing".
Geoff.
Smokey
Rip Michael, what a sad ending to his life
--
�m�k��
Cats have purr-sonality =^..^=
Bernadette
> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
Really? I thought "innocent until proved guilty" was the bench mark. He was
cleared of all charges.
--
Bernadette
Gareth
> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4604027.stm
james
I once had lunch with Michael Jackson. It sounds improbable but it was
in that big hotel on the front at Eastbourne. The lunch was hosted by
Paul Hamlyn, the owner and chairman of Octopus Books. He had launched a
new paperback imprint, Mandarin, and used two titles for the launch -- a
book of mine called 'Mirage' -- about Mossad plans to steal Mirage 5
drawings from Switzerland following de Gaulle's embargo on the supply of
the fighters as a result of the Six Day War. The other title was
'Moonwalk' by Michael Jackson.
Mandarin sent a car to collect me, and a Bristow helicopter to collect
Michael Jackson from Paris where he was doing a song and dance show. The
helicopter's arrival and departure made an awful mess of the hotel's
manicured and Philishaved gardens on the front.
I had a splendid lunch. Michael Jackson ate a lettuce leaf although he
did eventually weaken and tried a spoonful of my trifle. Just the one
spoonful.
Michael Jackson was, to be charitable, a little weird. It was a
delicious trifle. Too young to die, though, but not as young as Douglas
Adams. To lose one acquaintance early is unfortunate, to lose two is
carelessness.
--
James Follett
Neil Barker
You piece of filth. You just can't pass up an opportunity to make
yourself look as though you know the rich and famous, even at the
expense of someone's death.
Why do you bother to post here? No-one reads your pathetic drivel
since you contributed to the demise of demon.local.
Sad wanker.
--
Neil Barker
Flyi�g �u� 2��9 +
Lots of nasty folk around these days �ire�ird, in all walks of life.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk FN 2��9 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Michaelangelo
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:06:07 +0000 (UTC), Bazza wrote:
>
>> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
>
> More parents molest their children than strangers and that *is* a
> proven fact!
That's not quite right. Most child abusers are known to their victims
and/or families but they're not necessarily parents or, indeed,
relatives.
--
Michaelangelo
Self-catering Holiday Accommodation for Disabled People
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk
§ireßird & $ir Vivor
> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
> see pic of him here taking care of his child...
Being an idiot doesn't make him a child molester.
Gareth
>> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
>
> He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
> don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
>
>> see pic of him here taking care of his child...
>
> Being an idiot doesn't make him a child molester.
I didn't say it did and I've never accused him of being so.
Gareth
>> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
>
> He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
> don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
From Wikipedia:
Michael Jackson married dermatologist nurse Deborah Jeanne Rowe, with
whom he fathered a son, Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr. (also known as
"Prince"), and a daughter, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson. The pair
first met in the mid-1980s, when Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo.
She spent many years treating his illness as well as providing
emotional support. They built a strong friendship, then became
romantically involved. Originally there were no plans to marry, but
following Rowe's first pregnancy, Jackson's mother intervened and
persuaded them to do so. After the couple divorced in 1999, with Rowe
giving full custody rights of the children to Jackson, they remained
friends.
Jackson's third child, Prince Michael Jackson II (also known as
Blanket) was born in 2002. The mother's identity was never released by
Jackson, but he has said the child was the result of artificial
insemination from a surrogate mother and his own sperm cells.
Frederick Williams
>
> I once had lunch with Michael Jackson.
You mean he and you were invited to the same luncheon do.
> Too young to die, though, but not as young as Douglas
> Adams. To lose one acquaintance early is unfortunate, to lose two is
> carelessness.
So Adams was someone else who just happened to be in the same room as
you at some time?
The Brownie
"Bazza" <ba...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ttle1....@news.alt.net...
> Great news, that's one more child molester less!
>
>
What a horrible, nasty comment... And you're not sure of that anyway.
Unless you'd *know* more than most people. Keep your council until you
do know the facts is the best way.Anyway in all that business Qui Buono..?
Marg
james
<frederick...@tesco.net> writes
>james wrote:
>>
>> I once had lunch with Michael Jackson.
>
>You mean he and you were invited to the same luncheon do.
>
>> Too young to die, though, but not as young as Douglas
>> Adams. To lose one acquaintance early is unfortunate, to lose two is
>> carelessness.
>
>So Adams was someone else who just happened to be in the same room as
>you at some time?
Bless my soul -- a flaktoid. Close but no cheroot. Not even a whiff of
one.
I first met Douglas Adams circa 1981 in Union House, Shepherds Bush,
where we shared a corridor. I was languishing in the Blake's 7 office,
he was in the Dr Who office next door as script editor for the then Dr
Who producer, the appalling Nathan-Turner. I recall contributing to the
Nathan Turner hit contract fund which, whenever it reached a fiver,
usually got splurged in a Shepherds Bush pub with Nathan Turner copping
the lion's share and me only getting the odd Coke.
Douglas Adams and I also shared an editor for a while, a Miss Freeman (I
can't recall her first name). He stayed loyal to her and switched
publishers to stay with her when she moved, whereas I tended to stay
loyal to one publisher and had a procession of bedable editors as a
result. Some of the women were okay, too.
We were both early users of minicomputers as word-crunchers. Douglas
went the Mac route which enabled him to delivery camera- ready copy to
his publishers because he was always behind on delivery dates. I was
struggling with a TRS-80, and later an IBM XT. It wasn't until around
1985 that Rank's "Ventura" type-setting program for the PC appeared thus
enabling me to do the same. It crawled whereas DA's Mac flew.
At the time I had written about four books while he was writing his
first. My mandatory biographical note at the front of my books merely
said: "James Follett is married, has two children, and lives in Surrey
with several cats". When "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" first
appeared in hardback, DA gave me a copy and shambled off with much
sniggering. I opened it and read: "Douglas Adams is unmarried, doesn't
live in Surrey, doesn't have any children, and loathes cats."
I bet you regret your ill-judged little flaktoid now!
Cheers
--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
Power are to make a movie of James Follette's ICE.
http://www.powcorp.com/title/view/401/ice
Tony Dragon
You read it.
--
Tony Dragon
"The Honest One"
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:QqOdnXweVuRRY9nX...@bt.com...
"Strange markings in the sand"
by - Peter Dragon
Tony Dragon
The View from the Cliff
by Eileen Dover
--
Tony Dragon
§ireßird & $ir Vivor
> I didn't say it did and I've never accused him of being so.
I didn't say you had and I didn't say you had.
ah
> james wrote:
>>
>> I once had lunch with Michael Jackson.
>
> You mean he and you were invited to the same luncheon do.
>
>> Too young to die, though, but not as young as Douglas
>> Adams. To lose one acquaintance early is unfortunate, to lose two is
>> carelessness.
>
> So Adams was someone else who just happened to be in the same room as
> you at some time?
>
Fight!
--
ah
"The Honest One"
"Tiger's revenge"
by - Claude Balls
"The Honest One"
"ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a456ea5$0$35395$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Print this off and wad it up and stuff it up your twat, "ah" !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ
Tony Dragon
"Somebody at the Door"
by Isabel Ringing
--
Tony Dragon
Gareth
>> I didn't say it did and I've never accused him of being so.
>
> I didn't say you had and I didn't say you had.
It makes one wonder why he paid off the kid $20million though.
Frederick Williams
> Bless my soul -- a flaktoid. Close but no cheroot. Not even a whiff of
> one.
>
>
> I bet you regret your ill-judged little flaktoid now!
No, I don't think so. A residue of doubt remains because I don't know
what a flaktoid is.
Charani
> It makes one wonder why he paid off the kid $20million though.
Goodness knows. Maybe just his way of saying sorry, maybe to stop any
further actions by the parents who didn't come across (to me) as very
nice people. He didn't seem able to think in hundreds or thousands,
only in millions.
He didn't have a normal childhood and I think that was responsible for
a lot, if not all, his actions and reactions as an adult. He seems to
have wanted all the things a normal child had and tried to recapture
it all later. He was seriously messed up but I don't think that was
of his doing. Everything seems to have escalated out of control,
possibly because he didn't have anyone around him who knew how to say
"no" to him in a way he could accept and comply with.
There was a comment in one news article that he was living a
billionaire's lifestyle on a millionaire's income.
A sad end for a talented person.
Rabbit
news:knrdkk6w4wcb$.1jm91625t8mbu.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> There was a comment in one news article that he was living a
> billionaire's lifestyle on a millionaire's income.
>
> A sad end for a talented person.
I read a good remark today. If just a fraction of the praise and alleged
love being showered on him in death had been given to him while alive he
might just still be here. Unfortunately that applies too often and not just
to famous people :-(
--
Sandra
People will forget what you said.
People will forget what you did, but
People will never forget how you made them feel.
John#8
"Rabbit" <Rabb...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RPCdnW-Gesu2atjX...@brightview.co.uk...
> "Charani" <SGBN...@mail2genes.invalid> wrote in message
> news:knrdkk6w4wcb$.1jm91625t8mbu.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>> There was a comment in one news article that he was living a
>> billionaire's lifestyle on a millionaire's income.
>>
>> A sad end for a talented person.
>
> I read a good remark today. If just a fraction of the praise and alleged
> love being showered on him in death had been given to him while alive he
> might just still be here. Unfortunately that applies too often and not
> just to famous people :-(
> --
> Sandra
Thanks Sandra for your common sense & non judgmental
attitude. We sit here & judge folks without knowing squat.
Certainly we wouldn't want false tales spread about our
families & especially ourselves. You are a gem. A diamond who
sparkles with your posts.
xxx
John:
Mr Pounder
"ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a456ea5$0$35395$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Heard you were deead.
Mr Pounder
§ireßird & $ir Vivor
> I read a good remark today. If just a fraction of the praise and alleged
> love being showered on him in death had been given to him while alive he
> might just still be here. Unfortunately that applies too often and not just
> to famous people :-(
Very true.
It is too late when a person's dead. They *do* need to be told when
they are alive. Everyone needs to feel valued.
"The Honest One"
"Forty yards to the outhouse"
by - Willy Makeet & illustrated by Betty Donte
Tony Dragon
by Hugh Flun Dung
--
Tony Dragon
"The Honest One"
"Under the grand-stands"
by - Seymour Butts
ah
>
> Heard you were deead.
Pay little or no heed to the dishonest kunt.
--
ah
Frederick Williams
>
> �ire�ird & $ir Vivor wrote in message :
> >> I didn't say it did and I've never accused him of being so.
> >
> > I didn't say you had and I didn't say you had.
>
> It makes one wonder why he paid off the kid $20million though.
To buy the silence of people more interested in nastiness than truth,
perhaps?
Gareth
>>>> I didn't say it did and I've never accused him of being so.
>>>
>>> I didn't say you had and I didn't say you had.
>>
>> It makes one wonder why he paid off the kid $20million though.
>
> To buy the silence of people more interested in nastiness than truth,
> perhaps?
james
<frederick...@tesco.net> writes
>james wrote:
>
>> Bless my soul -- a flaktoid. Close but no cheroot. Not even a whiff of
>> one.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I bet you regret your ill-judged little flaktoid now!
>
>No, I don't think so. A residue of doubt remains because I don't know
>what a flaktoid is.
My silly invented jargon because the correct Group Dynamics term,
'presumptive invalidation', is such a cumbersome mouthful. My term also
fits the underlying definition of an 'unsubstantiated noise uttered for
the sake of making a noise'.
In Group Dynamics the causal effects are quite well-known and
documented. Group member A makes a statement the contents of which
serious undermine member B's self-esteem or self-confidence to such a
degree that B feels impelled to make a comment to attempt to undermine
A's statement. That's invalidation.
I first became aware of it when I overheard a conversation between two
women. Woman A and Woman B. Woman A was incensed by the comments of the
protagonist whom she was reporting. She peppered her commentary with
seemingly endless and indignant: 'then she turned round and said...'
These went on at some length. Woman A wasn't implying that the unknown
person was spinning like a top, rather she was seeking to prove to Woman
B the uselessness of the unknown person's comments or statements because
the unknown person's views or ethos, were a direct challenge to Woman
A's confidence or self-esteem.
She was using invalidation. Had she used spurious or unfounded grounds
as a basis for her attack then she would've been using presumptive
invalidation. Attributive invalidation is much the same.
If you dispute or don't agree with Group Dynamics, don't worry because
you're not alone. The discipline is as thoroughly detested as much as
existentialism. Trouble is that it's had so many successes with English
security services in defining the evolution of groups that treasury have
sat up and taken a lot of notice. Institutes and behavioural research
outfits have copped almost unlimited funding.
Me -- I use what little I understand of Group Dynamics to help me
understand a modicum of human behaviour. Group Dynamics was a damned
useful tool in another life when I used to write political speeches. The
Usenet is a rich hunting ground for serious students.
It's interesting to note that at the last check there was wasn't one
Usenet newsgroup devoted to existentialism and group dynamics.
I don't suppose the web has much to say on the subjects either, although
I've several books. J P Satre wrote a couple of words. Unfortunately I
didn't understand either of them.
--
James Follett.
Fergal
"james" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6MotHfKS...@marage.demon.co.uk...
another? Anger? Fear? Stupidity? Some deep pea-brained urging of his soul?
The answer cannot easily be found, but it is my intent to put inexorable
pressure on him to be a bit more careful about what he says and does. For
most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and
urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical.
Everybody knows that Follett's views are so exact in their scheme, so
comprehensive in their scope, that the most quixotic chiselers you'll ever
see have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim, but you should
consider that Follett attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous
"meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're
shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing
and active type, Follett says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he
say such things? The best answer comes from Follett himself. That is, if you
pay attention to his dangerous demands you'll indisputably notice that
Follett really struck a nerve with me when he said that going through the
motions of working is the same as working. That lie is a painful reminder
that it may seem difficult at first to make an impartial and well-informed
evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Follett's communiqu�s. It
is. But one of Follett's most loyal zealots is known to have remarked,
"Follett possesses infinite wisdom." And there you have it: a direct quote
from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that by allowing
Follett to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling
to die for himself, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
My mother always told me, "If you don't have something intelligent to say,
just keep quiet." Apparently, Follett's mother never told him that.
Follett's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is oppressive because it
leaves no room for compromise. Follett's representatives have been
staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times-stunned,
confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Follett's
maladroit apologues. It is doubtlessly not a pretty sight. Follett wants to
promulgate partisan prejudice against others. Who does he think he is? I
mean, the reason he wants to transform our society into a headstrong war
machine is that he's completely depraved. If you believe you have another
explanation for his lewd behavior, then please write and tell me about it.
It would be great if we could develop an alternative community, a cohesive
and comprehensive underground with a charter to make Follett answer for his
wrongdoings. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the
issue of Bulverism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own)
to a vision of how to remove the misunderstanding that Follett has created
in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. His hypnopompic insights
are based on hate. Hate, frotteurism, and an intolerance of another
viewpoint, another way of life.
As I noted at the beginning of this letter, while Follett and other
anti-democratic paper-pushers sometimes differ on the details and scale of
their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic
principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that you understand that
the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about
ways to solve the problems of wowserism, irreligionism, economic inequality,
and lack of equal opportunity, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes
a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but
then again, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of
society on our minimum standards of behavior. The key to Follett's soul is
his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an
animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of
rational cognition. As a result, I, not being one of the many puerile
pseudo-intellectuals of this world, unequivocally hope you're not being
misled by the "new Follett". Only his methods and tactics have changed.
Follett's goal is still the same: to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty,
and treason. That's why I'm telling you that if you think that the future of
the entire world rests in Follett's hands, then think again.
Here's an eye-opener for you: We must give to bigotry no sanction, to
persecution no assistance. Follett has remarked that society is screaming
for his editorials. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone
with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for
you. For starters, Follett's emotionally biased and expletive-filled slurs
push home the point that he knows perfectly well that it's pesky bozos like
him that lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. We
can therefore extrapolate that one of the great mysteries of modern life is,
How much longer can we tolerate his unsophisticated notions before the whole
country collectively throws up? It is bootless to speculate on the matter
but it should be noted that Follett is lacking in the social graces. It
follows from this that not only does he pander to our worst fears, but he
then commands his advocates, "Go, and do thou likewise."
I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but if I were to compile a
list of Follett's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would
fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a
list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six
realize that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many
pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just
state the key point, which is that Follett has allied himself with the devil
and serves him faithfully. An obvious parallel from a slightly different
context is that I wouldn't judge his habitu�s too harshly. They're
undoubtedly just cannon fodder for Follett's plot to leave behind a wake of
pestiferous reaction.
I use such language purposefully-and somewhat sardonically-to illustrate how
Follett's factotums allege that anyone who disagrees with Follett is
ultimately rummy. This is precisely the non-equation that Follett is trying
to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that he is not just
unpleasant. He is unbelievably, astronomically unpleasant. As I often like
to put it, if we don't give him a rhadamanthine warning not to introduce
more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms right now, then
Follett's canards will soon start to metastasize until they entangle our
peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest,
humor, or caprice of paltry party animals. I just want to say that Follett's
the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more
of a thumper it is, the better he likes it. Well, sure; Follett's modus
operandi is to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and
epistemological uncertainty, but that doesn't change reality. Follett's
vaporings will have consequences-very serious consequences. We ought to
begin doing something about that. We ought to derail Follett's inarticulate
little schemes. We ought to spread the word that I've repeatedly pointed out
to him that one of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those of us who don't
like Follett is trying to understand people who do. That apparently didn't
register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess I'm at loggerheads with him on
at least one important issue. Namely, Follett argues that we're supposed to
shut up and smile when he says merciless things. I take the opposite
position, that my purpose here is not to bring Follett down a peg. Well,
okay, it is. But I should point out that Follett is not as incontinent or
psychotic as you might think. He's more so.
Follett expresses a dysfunctional nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging,
homogeneous society that never really existed. If, after hearing facts like
that, you still believe that catty good-for-nothings are more deserving of
honor than our nation's war heroes, then there is obviously no hope for you.
Some officious skinheads actually suspect that he can achieve his goals by
friendly and moral conduct. This is the kind of muddled thinking that he is
encouraging with his fibs. Even worse, all those who raise their voice
against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as censorious, mentally
deficient loons. You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually build bridges where in
the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. You decide.
I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I
do know that Follett's ideals are so bumptious that in minutes they can wipe
out of a child's brain what that child had learned in six months at home,
church, or school. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable,
and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Follett feel that his
activities are on the up-and-up? If I'm not horribly mistaken, there's a
painfully simple answer. It regards the way that if he bites me I will truly
bite back. Follett will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him
doctor evidence and classification systems and make brain-damaged
generalizations to support meretricious, preconceived views. At least
putting up with another James Follett hissy fit is easier than convincing
Follett's bootlickers that when Follett says that he defends the real needs
of the working class, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's
like he believes he has said something very profound. Now that you've read
the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a surprise that what our
nation needs is more respect for the law, not less. However, this fact bears
repeating again and again, until the words crack through the hardened
exteriors of those who would tinker about with a lot of halfway
prescriptions. I am referring, of course, to the likes of Mr. James Follett.
james
<fer...@ntlword.corn> writes
>
>"james" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6MotHfKS...@marage.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <4A45EF74...@tesco.net>, Frederick Williams
>> <frederick...@tesco.net> writes
>>>james wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bless my soul -- a flaktoid. Close but no cheroot. Not even a whiff of
>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I bet you regret your ill-judged little flaktoid now!
>>>
>>>No, I don't think so. A residue of doubt remains because I don't know
>>>what a flaktoid is.
>>
>> My silly invented jargon because the correct Group Dynamics term,
>> 'presumptive invalidation', is such a cumbersome mouthful.
>Why does Mr. James Follett stir up one part of the population against
>another?
(Wry chuckle and snip computer-generated diatribe)
The worst thing that can be said about me is so shameful that it has to
be rotated rather than be said out loud in polite company:
V qba'g yvxr Znezvgr.
--
James Follett
BrianE
> You piece of filth.
Nice..
You just can't pass up an opportunity to make
> yourself look as though you know the rich and famous, even at the
> expense of someone's death.
>
> Why do you bother to post here? No-one reads your pathetic drivel
> since you contributed to the demise of demon.local.
>
> Sad wanker.
This is rich from the biggest dickhead on Usenet. Please don't
crosspost your shite to Surrey.
Tony Dragon
"Confessions of a Peeping Tom"
by I. Sawyer Bush
--
Tony Dragon
Fergal
Tony Dragon
"The Art Of Self Love"
by Ima Wayne Kerr
--
Tony Dragon
Fergal
Tony Dragon
"How to make doughnuts"
by Kris P. Cream
--
Tony Dragon
Derek F
"�ire�ird & $ir Vivor" <sisuN...@mail2nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e8qdq9vmw2dc$.1tcuehsm4pqct$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:28:40 +0100, Gareth wrote:
>
>> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
>
> He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
> don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
>
>> see pic of him here taking care of his child...
>
> Being an idiot doesn't make him a child molester.
The kids were always with him. The mother was just an unfortunately
necessary instrument in their production.
Derek.
Neil Barker
Try stopping me.
--
Neil Barker
Neil Barker
> " ire ird & $ir Vivor" <sisuNOS...@mail2nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:e8qdq9vmw2dc$.1tcuehsm4pqct$.dlg@40tude.net...> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:28:40 +0100, Gareth wrote:
>
> >> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
>
> > He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
> > don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
>
> >> see pic of him here taking care of his child...
>
> > Being an idiot doesn't make him a child molester.
>
> The kids were always with him. The mother was just an unfortunately
> necessary instrument in their production.
> Derek.
Nobody is interested in Jackson. Stop posting about him/it.
The subject under discussion is Follett's desperate attempts to make
himself look good.
These attempts have never worked with his publications, so why should
they work on usenet?
He dug his own grave when he destroyed demon.local by sticking his
tongue up Rooney's arsehole.
--
Neil Barker
BrianE
> On Jun 29, 4:04ï¿œam, BrianE <br...@nojunkplease.co.uk> wrote:
>> Neil Barker spoke shite as per usual:
>>
>>> You piece of filth.
>>
>> Nice..
>>
>>
>>> yourself look as though you know the rich and famous, even at the
>>> expense of someone's death.
>>
>>> Why do you bother to post here? No-one reads your pathetic drivel
>>> since you contributed to the demise of demon.local.
>>> Sad wanker.
>>
>> This is rich from the biggest dickhead on Usenet. Please don't
>> crosspost your shite to Surrey.
>
> Try stopping me.
LOL! What a knob.
"The Honest One"
> Neil Barker wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 5:58 am, "Derek F" <lordpilrig...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> >> " ire ird & $ir Vivor" <sisuNOS...@mail2nowhere.com> wrote in
messagenews:e8qdq9vmw2dc$.1tcuehsm4pqct$.dlg@40tude.net...> On Fri, 26
Jun 2009 09:28:40 +0100, Gareth wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Michael Jackson was a parent too.
> >>
> >> > He and the mother of his children were divorced after 2 years. I
> >> > don't know what contact he had with them after that obviously.
> >>
> >> >> see pic of him here taking care of his child...
> >>
> >> > Being an idiot doesn't make him a child molester.
> >>
> >> The kids were always with him. The mother was just an unfortunately
> >> necessary instrument in their production.
> >> Derek.
> >
> >
> > Nobody is interested in Jackson. Stop posting about him/it.
> >
> > The subject under discussion is Follett's desperate attempts to make
> > himself look good.
> >
> > These attempts have never worked with his publications, so why
should
> > they work on usenet?
> >
> > He dug his own grave when he destroyed demon.local by sticking his
> > tongue up Rooney's arsehole.
>
> You filthy beast!
> --
> ah
"ah" you filthy Deco Slurper !!
--
HJ
Neil Barker
> Neil Barker used his keyboard to write :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 4:04 am, BrianE <br...@nojunkplease.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Neil Barker spoke shite as per usual:
>
> >>> You piece of filth.
>
> >> Nice..
>
>
> >>> yourself look as though you know the rich and famous, even at the
> >>> expense of someone's death.
>
> >>> Why do you bother to post here? No-one reads your pathetic drivel
> >>> since you contributed to the demise of demon.local.
> >>> Sad wanker.
>
> >> This is rich from the biggest dickhead on Usenet. Please don't
> >> crosspost your shite to Surrey.
>
> > Try stopping me.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keyboard warrior.
You wouldn't dare say that if you met me.
The boys in Hereford are aware.
The clock is ticking.
--
Neil Barker
BrianE
>>> Try stopping me.
>>
>> LOL! What a knob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Keyboard warrior.
>
> You wouldn't dare say that if you met me.
Fuck me you're tough..
>
> The boys in Hereford are aware.
Who's that, the local DSS, Hereford Utd Supporters Club, Hereford WI?
We should be told.
>
> The clock is ticking.
Shore is.
Silver Surrey Surfer
"Neil Barker" <neilande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85ddaadd-bd2c-41b6...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Keyboard warrior.
The clock is ticking.
--
Neil Barker
STRAFE HIM NEIL! STRAFE HIM!!11!!!!!!!!!!
DAFT BRIAN ONLY POSTS BECAUSE THE NULIEBOUR HOME SECRETARY RELEASED HIM!!!
FREE RONNY BIGGS!!!
LOCK UP DAFT BRIAN 11!!!!!!!!!!!!
Silver Surrey Surfer
"BrianE" <br...@nojunkplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.130a7d971...@nojunkplease.co.uk...
> Neil Barker explained on 02/07/2009 :
>
>>>> Try stopping me.
>>>
>>> LOL! What a knob.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Keyboard warrior.
>>
>> You wouldn't dare say that if you met me.
>
> Fuck me you're tough..
Is it only tough men who you allow to fuck you?
>
>>
>> The boys in Hereford are aware.
>
> Who's that, the local DSS, Hereford Utd Supporters Club, Hereford WI? We
> should be told.
You will be told alright if Neil calls in the heavy mob.
>
>>
>> The clock is ticking.
>
> Shore is.
>
>
Wots the beach got to do with it?
Why havent you been locked up again, Daft Brian?
--
A vigilant vigalante.
BrianE
> Why havent you been locked up again, Daft Brian?
Wahey, silly bollocks is back..
james
<fer...@ntlword.corn> writes
>Follett's goal is still the same: to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty,
>and treason.
Dear Mr Fergal,
A friendly warning.
I've never met you; you've never met me. You have little or no idea of
my principals and standards yet on 27 June you posted a
computer-generated diatribe against me that consisted of several hundred
words of criminally libellous accusations directed at a professional
person and his livelihood.
The level of hatred you displayed is fascinating. As a keen student of
human behaviour, I can't help wondering why you did such a thing. I've
made it clear on several occasions that I an existentialist therefore
you should've realised that your hysterical outburst would have no
affect on me. It would not change me so why indulge your bizarre
obsessional fanaticism on me? If my presence on a few news groups
inflames immature passions in your breast, then leave them. You have
over 100,000 news groups to choose from. The Usenet is to be enjoyed,
not endured.
I can only assume that you're a juvenile whose parents don't realise the
chances that their offspring is taking in risking bringing fearful and
vengeful enemies to their door. Because you are taking a terrible risk,
believe me. You are running into budget-rich hate laws and hordes of
skilled lawyers such Follettstock.com, who know how to work the system.
--
James Follett
Mr Pounder
> Mr Pounder wrote:
>
>>
>> Heard you were deead.
>
> Pay little or no heed to the dishonest kunt.
> --
> ah
Dead link.
Hallo Ah.
DB001
> "Neil Barker" <neilande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
news:85ddaadd-bd2c-41b6...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 4:50 pm, BrianE <br...@nojunkplease.co.uk> wrote:
>> Neil Barker used his keyboard to write :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 4:04 am, BrianE <br...@nojunkplease.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Neil Barker spoke shite as per usual:
>>
>>>>> You piece of filth.
>>
>>>> Nice..
>>
>>>> You just can't pass up an opportunity to make
>>
>>>>> yourself look as though you know the rich and famous, even at the
>>>>> expense of someone's death.
>>
>>>>> Why do you bother to post here? No-one reads your pathetic drivel
>>>>> since you contributed to the demise of demon.local.
>>>>> Sad wanker.
>>
>>>> This is rich from the biggest dickhead on Usenet. Please don't
>>>> crosspost your shite to Surrey.
>>
>>> Try stopping me.
>>
>> LOL! What a knob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Keyboard warrior.
>
> You wouldn't dare say that if you met me.
>
> The boys in Hereford are aware.
>
> The clock is ticking.
JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK
--
DB001
I AM NOT A NUMBER I AM A FREE MAN
(WELL NEARLY)
james
<fer...@ntlword.corn> writes
>Follett's goal is still the same: to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty,
>and treason. That's why I'm telling you that if you think that the future of
>the entire world rests in Follett's hands, then think again.
Several hundred words laden with lies, false accusations, and hatred
snipped.
Dear Mr Fergal,
I gave you a friendly warning about your poisonous diatribe
against me that you haven't bothered to reply to. Fair
enough, but the following repost from the Bognor Regis
Observer does underline my point that you're riding the
ragged edge of disaster with your hate post. What is
happening in an unregarded corner of Sussex is being
repeated all over the country: supposedly cash-strapped
local authorities and police can tap into seemingly
unlimited funding when it comes to dealing with hate in any
form. So much so that they're actually advertising for business
as the repost shows:
BEGIN QUOTE:
Service is launched to help tackle hate crime in West Sussex
Date: 09 July 2009
A new service to tackle hate crimes and incidents in West
Sussex is being launched tomorrow (Friday, July 10).
The hate incident support service has been set up by the
county council harm reduction team and Victim Support
Sussex, a charity offering free, confidential information
and support to victims and witnesses of crime.
The service is designed to:
* Provide victims with one-to-one emotional and practical
support.
* Provide support in magistrates and crown courts where
appropriate.
* Reduce repeat victimisation.
* Promote and enable social inclusion.
* Collect data about incidents so preventative action can be
taken.
Harm reduction team co-ordinator Beverly Knight said hate
incidents and crime might include name-calling, assault,
harassment, offensive literature, graffiti, criminal damage
and threats of violence.
"Hate incidents and crimes occur where it is believed the
victim has been targeted because of their actual or
perceived race/ethnicity, religion/belief, gender identity,
disability or sexual orientation," she said.
Anyone experiencing or witnessing a hate crime or incident
can report it, in confidence, by using a form developed by
the hate incident support service.
* Completing the form online at www.westsussex.gov.uk/harmre
duction
* Emailing SussexHateIn...@victimsupport.org.uk
* Sending a hard copy to Victim Support at PO Box 101,
Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 8UA.
* Calling 0845 075 1021 – staffed 8am-8pm, answerphone
available at other times.
* Faxing 01293 536888.
Cllr Peter Evans, county cabinet member for public safety,
said: "If you believe you have experienced or witnessed a
hate crime or incident, don't hesitate – report it.
"Reporting such incidents and crime is very important
because it helps the Hate Incident Support Service identify
where problem areas are and helps us to improve services to
deal with hate incidents. I would encourage people to report
all hate incidents – even those that may not seem serious.
"As the publicity for the hate incident support service
says, 'Hate hurts. Don't support it – Report it!'"
The harm reduction team also delivers training to schools
and voluntary and statutory organisations, with the aim of
promoting respect for diversity and an understanding of
prejudice and its effects.
END QUOTE
It's all madness, of course with its talk of hate incident
support teams and such nonsense, but it's dangerous madness
that can easily seize on and give a bad shaking to silly
miscreants like yourself.
--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/jamesfollett
http://www.bevanwilson.co.uk/media/files/Stroke-rec.pdf
james
>homogeneous society that never really existed.
Gosh. Jf