lpacker wrote:
>
> Peter <Pe...@getlostwharton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >You have kicked no-one's arse.
>
> You don't suppose they've been kicking each other's and thinking
> that....
>
> Nah, even *they* couldn't be that stupid.
>
> Could they??
> >
> >In fact, as you will shortly learn, you have set yourself a terrible
> >problem.
> >
> >Using completely legitimate methods - under your constitution and mine -
> >I have set in train certain processes.
> >
> >Note the emphasis on constitutional law.
> >
> >This may take a while, it may take weeks or even months, but do look
> >forward to receiving legitimate visits or telephone calls.
> >
> Actually, I suspect that one will be getting some correspondence
> first. Before any visits or phone calls that you might be thinking
> of.
>
> >This is a promise. It is no empty threat. As you already know, I have
> >been very busy. I am not finished.
>
> You are not the only one.
>
> And your CD and files have already been immensely helpful. To a
> couple of professional organizations, among others.
>
> >--
> >Peter
> > <Do something about the getlost in my address if you want to write.>
> >
> > http://www.wharton.demon.co.uk/Central.htm
> > http://www.wharton.demon.co.uk/Awards.htm <a photo of Tim-Brad at work>
> > http://www.wharton.demon.co.uk/Caught17.htm - the puppeteer caught AGAIN
> > http://www.wharton.demon.co.uk/BradFAQ.htm
> >*Polling Booth*: http://www.wharton.demon.co.uk/Vote.htm
> > 387 in the bag, some to research. <site updated>
Projecting again!
> You are next in line for the person
> I will take appropriate professional actions against.
Coming from a non-professional!
> The 200 or 300
> Megs of Peter's "evidence" is in large part just plain madness. It is
> also libelous.
Once again, projecting!
> You are guilty of inappropriate behavior if you spread
> libelous materials.
Playing the role of Judge!
> Kinda reminds me of when you repeated complete lies
> about me over and over for more than a year -- based on no evidence.
Projecting again!
> You should be in trouble with the New York Licensing people already. It
> is just that other cases had priority.
Yeah, 'right!