Producer Who Accused Savile Arrested

Turk182

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 12:20:27 PM11/11/12

to

A man who appeared on the TV show and accused Savile as being an
abuser, Wilfred De’ath, has himself been arrested. His statement on
TV did raise eyebrows, as he had claimed to have been convinced that
Savile had taken a very young girl into a hotel, but said he had done
nothing. His statement was confusing. I am not sure if this was the
man who had said he had worked with Savile at Radio Luxembourg.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9670035/Jimmy-Savile-police-arrest-third-man-over-historic-sex-abuse-allegations.html

Turk182

Jacob Von Hogflume

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 12:35:29 PM11/11/12

to

Following the 1999 'investigation' (Pmsl) there has been a list of known
paedophiles in government stashed away not to be opened for 100 years.
If politicians have not been up to anything there would be no need to do
this.

A new inquiry should demand that this list should be released now.

Frederick Williams

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 1:45:02 PM11/11/12

to

There is nothing wrong with paedophilia, which should never be confused
with such things as the rape of children.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

Graham.

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:02:32 PM11/11/12

to

Uncommon Criminal
by Wilfred De'ath
ISBN 9781857252248

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Jacob Von Hogflume

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:25:53 PM11/11/12

to

On 11/11/2012 18:45, Frederick Williams wrote:
> Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>
>> Following the 1999 'investigation' (Pmsl) there has been a list of known
>> paedophiles in government stashed away not to be opened for 100 years.
>> If politicians have not been up to anything there would be no need to do
>> this.
>>
>> A new inquiry should demand that this list should be released now.
>
> There is nothing wrong with paedophilia, which should never be confused
> with such things as the rape of children.
>

Are you a chum of Nigels?

Graham.

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:55:23 PM11/11/12

to

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:45:02 +0000, Frederick Williams
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>
>> Following the 1999 'investigation' (Pmsl) there has been a list of known
>> paedophiles in government stashed away not to be opened for 100 years.
>> If politicians have not been up to anything there would be no need to do
>> this.
>>
>> A new inquiry should demand that this list should be released now.
>
>There is nothing wrong with paedophilia, which should never be confused
>with such things as the rape of children.

Here's a new word for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:56:12 PM11/11/12

to

Same intellectual level.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:56:54 PM11/11/12

to

Old, actually, and little relevant usage, today.

WM

Jacob Von Hogflume

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 2:57:25 PM11/11/12

to

Bad as that eh?

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 3:06:59 PM11/11/12

to

For you, yep.

WM

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 3:11:42 PM11/11/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 19:25, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 18:45, Frederick Williams wrote:

[snip]

>> Are you a chum of Nigels?
>
> Same intellectual level.

I agree, but that is not a good thing given that both of you would find an
argument with a mollusc challenging.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 3:25:06 PM11/11/12

to

Evidentially not, as I proven to you, many times.

Get help Steve ... constant, angry, trolling is not good for you - really.

WM

Janitor of Lunacy

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 3:49:20 PM11/11/12

to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:319411215374357191.972017%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...

For once, I agree, since molluscs are not noted for their conversational
abilities at any level. So any argument would be a tad one-sided.

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 5:40:46 PM11/11/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 20:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2012 19:25, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 18:45, Frederick Williams wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Are you a chum of Nigels?
>>>
>>> Same intellectual level.
>>
>> I agree, but that is not a good thing given that both of you would find an
>> argument with a mollusc challenging.
>
> Evidentially

Try to learn the meaning of that word.

> not, as I proven to you, many times.

Yes you've fallen over your own fat feet on many occasions.

> Get help Steve ... constant, angry, trolling is not good for you - really.

Projection. I'm never angry.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 5:40:46 PM11/11/12

to

Indeed. They would leave Trolledfield for dead.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:03:01 PM11/11/12

to

On 11/11/2012 22:40, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 20:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 19:25, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2012 18:45, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Are you a chum of Nigels?
>>>>
>>>> Same intellectual level.
>>>
>>> I agree, but that is not a good thing given that both of you would find an
>>> argument with a mollusc challenging.
>>
>> Evidentially
>
> Try to learn the meaning of that word.

Evidentially, I do.

>> not, as I proven to you, many times.
>
> Yes you've fallen over your own fat feet on many occasions.

Evidentially not, not once. You are far too easy to squash, using simple
logic, let alone anything else.

>> Get help Steve ... constant, angry, trolling is not good for you - really.
>
> Projection. I'm never angry.

Then what do you believe drives your trolling, pleasure?

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:03:20 PM11/11/12

to

On 11/11/2012 22:40, Steve Firth wrote:

I rest my case.

WM

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:17:38 PM11/11/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 22:40, Steve Firth wrote:
>> "Janitor of Lunacy" <zo...@zonk.com> wrote:
>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:319411215374357191.972017%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2012 19:25, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 18:45, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you a chum of Nigels?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same intellectual level.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but that is not a good thing given that both of you would find an
>>>> argument with a mollusc challenging.
>>>>
>>> For once, I agree, since molluscs are not noted for their conversational
>>> abilities at any level. So any argument would be a tad one-sided.
>>
>> Indeed. They would leave Trolledfield for dead.
>
> I rest my case.

Not there, it's causing a trip hazard. Oh too late, there you go again.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:17:38 PM11/11/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes you've fallen over your own fat feet on many occasions.
>
> Evidentially

No, really, buy a dictionary.

> not, not once. You are far too easy to squash, using simple logic, let
alone anything else.

Ah yes the same self deceit that makes you make a fool of yourself over and
over again.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:24:32 PM11/11/12

to

See above.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 6:33:46 PM11/11/12

to

On 11/11/2012 23:17, Steve Firth wrote:

> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes you've fallen over your own fat feet on many occasions.
>>
>> Evidentially
>
> No, really, buy a dictionary.

No, really, I do know and it is.

> > not, not once. You are far too easy to squash, using simple logic, let
> alone anything else.
>
> Ah yes the same self deceit that makes you make a fool of yourself over and
> over again.

Steve, the record speaks for itself - it is concrete and clear.

I have no idea why you appear so full of angst, against so many people,
including me.

I am more than capable of absorbing it, to no ill effect.

I am, mildly, interested, why someone with such an apparently reasonable
level of intelligence etc, would be so consistently hateful, belligerent
and rude, online. It is not as though you get much pay-off, here, as you
would elsewhere.

I am pretty sure you cannot be such, off-line.

Anyways, whatever you wish to share, please do so.

WM

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:24:24 PM11/11/12

to

My error. Don't buy a dictionary. Check in for remedial English lessons. Or
continue to post gibberish. First clue, one cannot have "angst against"
neither hier und in Deutschland auch nichts.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:24:25 PM11/11/12

to

Your masterly refutation of my arguments is sadly looking like a small
child's concept of argument.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:54:48 PM11/11/12

to

On 12/11/2012 00:24, Steve Firth wrote:

>> Anyways, whatever you wish to share, please do so.
>
> My error. Don't buy a dictionary. Check in for remedial English lessons. Or
> continue to post gibberish. First clue, one cannot have "angst against"
> neither hier und in Deutschland auch nichts.

Of course one can.

One may suffer angst, due to another, and that angst is used against
them for e.g. revenge.

Here is a link for you, so that you may ponder and work on the concept,
at your leisure ...

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&spell=1&q=angst+against&sa=X&ei=nEegUPaXBtKk0AXPnoGQCw&ved=0CBwQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=f0757f9dd0e77dbb&bpcl=38093640&biw=1280&bih=799

Sometimes, I do wonder (and chuckle about) who/what you think you are up
against, when you challenge me.

Anyways, always here, for your next evolution.

WM

Janitor of Lunacy

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:56:10 PM11/11/12

to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message

news:562981762374372425.400986%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...

Did you mean "weder hier noch in Deutschland" or "nicht hier und auch nicht
in Deutschland"? It's not clear, because what you wrote means "neither here
and in Germany also nothing".

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:56:17 PM11/11/12

to

Your fail speaks for itself, no more need be added (unless you really
need me to?).

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 7:57:31 PM11/11/12

to

On 12/11/2012 00:56, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:

>>
>> My error. Don't buy a dictionary. Check in for remedial English lessons.
>> Or
>> continue to post gibberish. First clue, one cannot have "angst against"
>> neither hier und in Deutschland auch nichts.
>>
> Did you mean "weder hier noch in Deutschland" or "nicht hier und auch nicht
> in Deutschland"? It's not clear, because what you wrote means "neither here
> and in Germany also nothing".

Let Steve come to terms with the English, first, bless him.

WM

Steerpike

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 3:50:50 AM11/12/12

to

> Steve, the record speaks for itself - it is concrete and clear.
>
>
>
> I have no idea why you appear so full of angst, against so many people,
>
> including me.

Have to agree with you on this Nigel.........could Steve have perhaps been abused as a child, and this is the reason behind the manner he attacks others on here?

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 6:07:56 AM11/12/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 00:24, Steve Firth wrote:
>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> Your masterly refutation of my arguments is sadly looking like a small
>> child's concept of argument.
>
> Your fail speaks for itself, no more need be added (unless you really need me to?).

Hollow words from a hollow head. Please try to come back with a comment
that isn't lame.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 6:07:57 AM11/12/12

to

Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 00:24, Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>> Anyways, whatever you wish to share, please do so.
>>
>> My error. Don't buy a dictionary. Check in for remedial English lessons. Or
>> continue to post gibberish. First clue, one cannot have "angst against"
>> neither hier und in Deutschland auch nichts.
>
> Of course one can.

No, your dogmatic assertions cut no ice. One cannot have " fear against"
something. It is, like most of your posts, grammatical drivel.

> One may suffer angst, due to another, and that angst is used against them for e.g. revenge.

Exploiting someone's fear is indeed possible. However it is not "fear
against" another.

> Here is a link for you, so that you may ponder and work on the concept, at your leisure ...

Oh dear, never mind, try harder in the future.

> Sometimes, I do wonder (and chuckle about) who/what you think you are up
> against, when you challenge me.

A dullard is what I am up against. A bombast with little understanding of
the language he thinks he can speak. A serial failure who has ruined his
own life of his own volition and who wastes what little time he has left on
earth attempting to retrospectively justify the actions that led to his
downward spiral. A clown. A joke. A fool incapable of self analysis.
Someone who fulfills the academic definition of "stupid".

Why do you ask? Were you under an illusion that you are regarded as
something other than a ludicrous figure of fun?

> Anyways, always here, for your next evolution.

You *really* need that dictionary.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 8:03:53 AM11/12/12

to

Really not sure.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 8:06:28 AM11/12/12

to

On 12/11/2012 11:07, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 00:24, Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyways, whatever you wish to share, please do so.
>>>
>>> My error. Don't buy a dictionary. Check in for remedial English lessons. Or
>>> continue to post gibberish. First clue, one cannot have "angst against"
>>> neither hier und in Deutschland auch nichts.
>>
>> Of course one can.
>
> No, your dogmatic assertions cut no ice. One cannot have " fear against"
> something. It is, like most of your posts, grammatical drivel.
>
>> One may suffer angst, due to another, and that angst is used against them for e.g. revenge.
>
> Exploiting someone's fear is indeed possible. However it is not "fear
> against" another.
>
>> Here is a link for you, so that you may ponder and work on the concept, at your leisure ...
>
> Oh dear, never mind, try harder in the future.

I tried, just as much as was required, for you ;)

>> Sometimes, I do wonder (and chuckle about) who/what you think you are up
>> against, when you challenge me.
>
> A dullard is what I am up against. A bombast with little understanding of
> the language he thinks he can speak. A serial failure who has ruined his
> own life of his own volition and who wastes what little time he has left on
> earth attempting to retrospectively justify the actions that led to his
> downward spiral. A clown. A joke. A fool incapable of self analysis.
> Someone who fulfills the academic definition of "stupid".

You are at it again - calmness, count to 10, calmness.

> Why do you ask? Were you under an illusion that you are regarded as
> something other than a ludicrous figure of fun?

Opinions will differ.

>> Anyways, always here, for your next evolution.
>
> You *really* need that dictionary.

Still here.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 8:07:12 AM11/12/12

to

On 12/11/2012 11:07, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 00:24, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> Your masterly refutation of my arguments is sadly looking like a small
>>> child's concept of argument.
>>
>> Your fail speaks for itself, no more need be added (unless you really need me to?).
>
> Hollow words from a hollow head. Please try to come back with a comment
> that isn't lame.

Does that mean you need me too or not?

WM

Mentalguy2k8

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 8:29:56 AM11/12/12

to

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 9:31:03 AM11/13/12

to

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:46:02 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes Captain Redbeard Rum, there will always be your opinion and on the
>other hand the opinion of everyone else.

Does the fact that an opinion is extremely popular mean that it is
likely to be correct?

--
Cynic

Richard McKenzie

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 10:01:33 AM11/13/12

to

On Nov 12, 7:31 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>

> Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think people would disagree on the morally neutral point on the
basis
that an adult should be able to enter relationships on an equal basis
without coercion. While children most likely may not.

Richard McKenzie

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 10:03:55 AM11/13/12

to

On Nov 13, 2:25 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:35:29 +0000, Jacob Von Hogflume
>

> <timefl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Following the 1999 'investigation' (Pmsl) there has been a list of known
> >paedophiles in government stashed away not to be opened for 100 years.
>
> Please post the evidence that makes you believe that that statement is
> true.
>
> --
> Cynic

There is a story that a rentboy client list was stolen from Lothian
and Borders police
HQ. In effect they were burgled! hence the reason why Salmond is pally
with
the Murdochs.

Frederick Williams

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 10:14:35 AM11/13/12

to

> I think people would disagree on the morally neutral point on the
> basis
> that an adult should be able to enter relationships on an equal basis
> without coercion. While children most likely may not.

I am against coercion in any relationship, so note that the definition
of paedophile nowhere mentions coercion. A person may be a paedophile
without ever laying a hand on child coercively or otherwise.

Paul Cummins

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 10:29:00 AM11/13/12

to

We were about to embark at Dover, when richardm...@googlemail.com
(Richard McKenzie) came up to me and whispered:

> I think people would disagree on the morally neutral point on
> the basis that an adult should be able to enter relationships on
> an equal basis without coercion.

Accurate in theory.

> While children most likely may not.

Deends on your definition of child.

For the definition of a child, you need to look at several different
pieces of legislation.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 defines a child as a person
under 14

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines a child as someone under 16 (for
consent purposes)

For Criminal Justice Purposes a Child is under 17.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes them 18.

Child Benefit regulations makes them up to 20.

Driving Licence rules extend that to 21.

Remember, ignorance of the law is no defence.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:06:12 PM11/13/12

to

On 13/11/2012 08:01, Steerpike wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> I never thought I would agree with you on anything Steve, but I think you have got Mr Oldfield down to a tee.........
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, for him, he is incorrect on all material counts, which
>>
>> also makes your judgment worrying.
>>
>>
>>
>> WM
>
>
> Sorry I thought you had served a prison sentence in relation to tossing off over kiddie porn,

No, but, let's pretend I did ... what is your point?

>had then lost your job as a teacher,

Well, I resigned (that is academic), but ... what is your point?

>and are now living in a hovel

... am I?

>relying on state benefits?

Yes, persecution and prejudice are terrible things (out of my control),
what are you doing to challenge them?

If thats correct,

Some is, but ......

>then it seems to me that the way Steve has summed you up is pretty much spot on.

... that is when your logic (and Steve's) fails, once again.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:24:58 PM11/13/12

to

On 13/11/2012 14:30, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 15:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2012 11:07, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Hollow words from a hollow head. Please try to come back with a comment
>>>>> that isn't lame.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you need me too or not?
>>>
>>> No one needs you Mr Oldfield. Fail on your part again, I note.
>>
>> Hook line and sinker.
>
> Indeed you swallowed it right down.

As if.

>> Thank you for playing.
>
> No thank you for participating in your humiliation, again.

As if.

WM

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 12:25:27 PM11/13/12

to

On 13/11/2012 15:01, Richard McKenzie wrote:

>
> I think people would disagree on the morally neutral point on the
> basis
> that an adult should be able to enter relationships on an equal basis
> without coercion. While children most likely may not.

No one ever does.

WM

Cynic

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 1:01:31 PM11/13/12

to

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:01:33 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I think people would disagree on the morally neutral point on the
>basis that an adult should be able to enter relationships on an equal basis
>without coercion. While children most likely may not.

That is not true in all cases, and where it is true it is true of
*all* interactions between adults and children, not only interactions
that involve sex. Therefore it cannot be the basis for any moral
decision.

To be morally wrong, it is my opinion that it must be something that
is significantly likely to lead to significant harm.

Adult/child sex is indeed significantly likely to lead to significant
harm, and so prohibition is in most cases justified. The big question
however is firstly what type of harm may be caused, and more
importantly *why* that harm is significantly likely to be caused.

--
Cynic

Cynic

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 1:08:54 PM11/13/12

to

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:03:55 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> <timefl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >Following the 1999 'investigation' (Pmsl) there has been a list of known
>> >paedophiles in government stashed away not to be opened for 100 years.

>> Please post the evidence that makes you believe that that statement is
>> true.

>There is a story that a rentboy client list was stolen from Lothian
>and Borders police
>HQ. In effect they were burgled! hence the reason why Salmond is pally
>with the Murdochs.

There are all sorts of stories - I can even invent them myself.

So - where did that particular story originate and what corroboration
is there that it is true?

If you are able to cross that hurdle, the next question will be
regarding the contents of the alleged list and how should I determine
its probable accuracy.

Then comes the question of how the police came to place the names on
the list - e.g. are they *known* clients or merely *suspected*
clients?

It would take a great deal of evidence before I am convinced that the
story is even loosely based on reality.

--
Cynic

Steve Firth

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 4:35:14 PM11/13/12

to

Hook, line and sinker again.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

Nigel Oldfield

unread,

Nov 13, 2012, 4:59:36 PM11/13/12

to

On 13/11/2012 21:35, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 14:30, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2012 15:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2012 11:07, Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hollow words from a hollow head. Please try to come back with a comment
>>>>>>> that isn't lame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean you need me too or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> No one needs you Mr Oldfield. Fail on your part again, I note.
>>>>
>>>> Hook line and sinker.
>>>
>>> Indeed you swallowed it right down.
>>
>> As if.
>>
>>>> Thank you for playing.
>>>
>>> No thank you for participating in your humiliation, again.
>>
>> As if.
>
> Hook, line and sinker again.

I suggest you revisit the sequence of events.

WM