Re: Max
Irma Newbey
"Nutter Cracker" <nutter.nutterc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29qbo51m2o6044eb8...@4ax.com...
>
> Apparently the people at Max Clifford's office have no trouble
> figuring out who's making a complaint to them, and who' smaking a
> complaint about me.
>
> Max's representative had no trouble figuring out that I wasn't the one
> being investigated. According to their reply to me, they'll be looking
> into the issue I brought to their attention.
>
> I don't pretend to know what that means. All I know is, Barmy had
> better sit on something absorbent for the next few months, and fear
> the sound of the doorbell.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't have chosen to accuse Max of fixing Wikipedia
> by duress. I wouldn't have accused Simon Cowell of being gay. I
> certainly wouldn't have accused Max of setting up sex parties.
Are you saying that someone on this Chat Group accused Max Clifford of
Fixing Wiki by duress and setting up sex parties ? Those were really
horrible thing for them to say about Max.
I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with these Interweb Chat Groups.
Is there some way you could show me what this person wrote please ?
Carol Newby
Tommo
> "Nutter Cracker" <nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:29qbo51m2o6044eb8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Apparently the people at Max Clifford's office have no trouble
> > figuring out who's making a complaint to them, and who' smaking a
> > complaint about me.
>
> > Max's representative had no trouble figuring out that I wasn't the one
> > being investigated. According to their reply to me, they'll be looking
> > into the issue I brought to their attention.
>
> > I don't pretend to know what that means. All I know is, Barmy had
> > better sit on something absorbent for the next few months, and fear
> > the sound of the doorbell.
>
> > Personally, I wouldn't have chosen to accuse Max of fixing Wikipedia
> > by duress. I wouldn't have accused Simon Cowell of being gay. I
> > certainly wouldn't have accused Max of setting up sex parties.
>
> Are you saying that someone on this Chat Group accused Max Clifford of
> Fixing Wiki by duress and setting up sex parties ? Those were really
> horrible thing for them to say about Max.
Perhaps someone is confused - this sounds like the sort of thing Max
*Mosley* would get up to
:0)
> I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with these Interweb Chat Groups.
> Is there some way you could show me what this person wrote please ?
>
> Carol Newby- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
@onetl.net.uk carol newby
"Tommo" <sxt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a12f6c26-21d2-4e30...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 9:50 am, "Irma Newbey" <New...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Nutter Cracker" <nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:29qbo51m2o6044eb8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Apparently the people at Max Clifford's office have no trouble
> > figuring out who's making a complaint to them, and who' smaking a
> > complaint about me.
>
> > Max's representative had no trouble figuring out that I wasn't the one
> > being investigated. According to their reply to me, they'll be looking
> > into the issue I brought to their attention.
>
> > I don't pretend to know what that means. All I know is, Barmy had
> > better sit on something absorbent for the next few months, and fear
> > the sound of the doorbell.
>
> > Personally, I wouldn't have chosen to accuse Max of fixing Wikipedia
> > by duress. I wouldn't have accused Simon Cowell of being gay. I
> > certainly wouldn't have accused Max of setting up sex parties.
>
> Are you saying that someone on this Chat Group accused Max Clifford of
> Fixing Wiki by duress and setting up sex parties ? Those were really
> horrible thing for them to say about Max.
: > Perhaps someone is confused - this sounds like the sort of thing Max
: > *Mosley* would get up to
: > :0)
Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max Mosely
the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when they
said those things about him ?
I'm sure this person here Nutter Cracker, said they were going to write to
Max Clifford not Max Mosely about what this other person had written.
I was just wondering what this person had said about Max Clifford
that was all.
Carol Newby
Ian F.
news:7un4e5...@mid.individual.net...
> Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max
> Mosely
> the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when
> they
> said those things about him ?
No, that was Max Bygraves. Someone accused him of being a pink toothbrush,
which he said was insulting to gay blue toothbrushes.
HTH
Ian
Mike Plowman
> "carol newby" <carol123 @onetl.net.uk> wrote in messagenews:7un4e5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max
> > Mosely
> > the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when
> > they
> > said those things about him ?
>
> No, that was Max Bygraves. Someone accused him of being a pink toothbrush,
> which he said was insulting to gay blue toothbrushes.
>
> HTH
>
> Ian
LOL!!
Col
>
> Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max
> Mosely
> the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when
> they
> said those things about him ?
LOL!
Internet Chat Groups indeed!
--
Col
And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas.
Ophelia
"Col" <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:X9KdncNpFKUiIxvW...@bt.com...
>
> "carol newby" <carol123 @onetl.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:7un4e5...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max
>> Mosely
>> the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when
>> they
>> said those things about him ?
>
> LOL!
> Internet Chat Groups indeed!
Hey! Give the girl a break, we were all newbies once:))
Welcome, Carol:)
pss just for future reference, this is a newsgroup on usenet:))
Col
"Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:7untbd...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Col" <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:X9KdncNpFKUiIxvW...@bt.com...
>>
>> "carol newby" <carol123 @onetl.net.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7un4e5...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, as I say I'm new to these Interweb Chat Groups. But isn't Max
>>> Mosely
>>> the man who already won lots of money from a Newspaper in damages when
>>> they
>>> said those things about him ?
>>
>> LOL!
>> Internet Chat Groups indeed!
>
> Hey! Give the girl a break, we were all newbies once:))
'Interweb Chat Groups' sounds like a phase people
joke that a newbie might say, rather than what a *real*
newbie would actually say.
And a newbie parachuting intoUMTM and immediately
getting involved in the Barker thing?
I smell a rat here....
Mike Plowman
wrote:
>'Interweb Chat Groups' sounds like a phase people
>joke that a newbie might say, rather than what a *real*
>newbie would actually say.
>
>And a newbie parachuting intoUMTM and immediately
>getting involved in the Barker thing?
>
>I smell a rat here....
With a surname like Newby? Surely not. :-)
Col
"Mike Plowman" <mike.p...@mydomain.net> wrote in message
news:hbndo5t0fglhj5m6t...@4ax.com...
And can't decide whether she's called Irma Newbie
or Carol Newby....
The Laughing Gnome
<nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently the people at Max Clifford's office have no trouble
> figuring out who's making a complaint to them, and who' smaking a
> complaint about me.
>
> Max's representative had no trouble figuring out that I wasn't the one
> being investigated. According to their reply to me, they'll be looking
> into the issue I brought to their attention.
>
> I don't pretend to know what that means. All I know is, Barmy had
> better sit on something absorbent for the next few months, and fear
> the sound of the doorbell.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't have chosen to accuse Max of fixing Wikipedia
> by duress. I wouldn't have accused Simon Cowell of being gay. I
> probably going to be his downfall. Barmy's, obviously. Not Max's.
>
> I'm very proud to have been able to bring Barmy down in this way. He
> who lives by the sword, etc. Quite why he thinks it's hypocritical I
> don't know. Calling someone out on libel is not the same as trying to
> get them sacked. Barmy never had the guts to bring his complaints to
> the courts. Well, now he gets the chance, but from the wrong side of
> the dock.
>
> I'm sure we'll all get a big kick out of the whole proceedings. That's
> what it's all about in the end, after all.
Yawn.
You mean you've been a hypocrite by trying to stir up trouble
elsewhere.
It'll fail. No one is going to take you seriously and I said nothing
untrue or libellous.
carol newby
"The Laughing Gnome" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a74ce37-ff2c-4f7f...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> It'll fail. No one is going to take you seriously and I said nothing
> untrue or libellous.
Hello Laughing Gnome.
When I asked Nutter Cracker to explain what you had written he
said it was on the Creeping Censorship Forum. I hope I've got this
right. Anyway in one of your emails on there it says
My guess is that Cowell is paying Clifford to pressurise Wikipedia
into ensuring that the issue can never even be alluded to.
and
It is therefore media manipulation and I don't like to
be spoonfed manipulated news.
and
Finally how can Wiki ever hope to weather the storms it is constantly
subjected to if it bows down to pressure from the influential and the
wealthy?
while in another of your emails you also wrote
Otherwise he will live
a sham life like Elton John did in the 1980s, which can't be much fun,
and is very damaging in retrospect.
Can you explain what damage Mr Dwight suffered as a result of leading
this sham life, as you put it
Carol Newby
Mike Plowman
> "The Laughing Gnome" <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6a74ce37-ff2c-4f7f...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
He would but he 'started work' about 8 minutes ago.
The Laughing Gnome
A loss of credibility within the gay community as typified by EJ's
bizarre marriage (which even he has the sense to realise was a stupid
mistake).
Freddie Mercury and Kenny Everett were two contemporaries of EJ who
proved that 'coming out' did not harm their careers. On the contrary,
people respected their integrity and it presumably helped other gay
people by virtue of the fact it validated their sexual inclination.
And today celebrities such as Morrissey, George Michael and Michael
Stipe prove conclusively that 'coming out' has no detrimental effect
on their careers.
A few years ago Noel Gallagher alleged that Robbie Williams was gay in
a rather snide and prejudiced manner. In the bad old days the press
would have hounded Williams with a view to implying he was some kind
of predatory monster, but because we live in more sensible times, they
turned instead on Gallagher, and quite rightly showed him up as a
homophobic dinosaur.
Because Simon Cowell actively courts high profile media attention we
are entitled to question the image he and his PR people seek to
project. Others have suggested that he may not be as heterosexual as
he claims to be so it is singularly odd that no reference to this is
made at Wikipedia, all the more so because his female partners are
referenced. Furthermore, it is a generally accepted fact that in
Hollywood, gay men hide their sexuality because of homophobic
prejudice amongst cinema-goers. Bearing in mind that SC is setting up
a $1 billion deal with the TV networks a LOT of money is stake. And
finally, Max Clifford makes no bones about the fact that he spends
more time covering stories up than promoting them, and that he
strongly recommends his gay clients stay deeply hidden in the closet.
Money is the bottom line here. I don't think it should be, and I
actually disagree with MC's policy on this issue. If SC is gay - and
as I've said repeatedly, the evidence that has surfaced is pure
conjecture, as it would be given MC's effective PR management - I
personally do not think it would harm his reputation. Sure, he might
lose some money in America, but how millions does he need?
Another consideration is that he has said he might be interested in
going into politics. This worries me because if he is living a lie -
and I do only say if - then how can we trust him on other more
important issues?
Mike Plowman
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Load of utter nonsense snipped
>Another consideration is that he has said he might be interested in
>going into politics.
No, he said he might be interested in producing a political show.
Again, your inability to read a sentence and comprehend shows itself.
The Laughing Gnome
<nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), in uk.media.tv.misc The
>
> Laughing Gnome <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >If SC is gay - and
> >as I've said repeatedly, the evidence that has surfaced is pure
> >conjecture, as it would be given MC's effective PR ma
>
> Bit late to back-pedal now, Barmy. You said he organised weird sex
> parties, remember? Want me to post the quote?
I thought you claimed to be a journalist?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/pressandpublishing.observermagazine
The Laughing Gnome
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/pressandpublishing.observ...
Hope? HOPE! Stop hiding behind that sock puppet and admit that you've
been bested - again.
As the Guardian interview proves, I was right and you were wrong. Do
the decent thing and apologise. If you can't do the decent thing leave
the group because you are an unworthy and malicious old fool.
The Laughing Gnome
<nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:16:24 -0800 (PST), in uk.media.tv.misc The
>
> Laughing Gnome <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 26 Feb, 20:23, Nutter Cracker
> ><nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), in uk.media.tv.misc The
>
> >> Laughing Gnome <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >If SC is gay - and
> >> >as I've said repeatedly, the evidence that has surfaced is pure
> >> >conjecture, as it would be given MC's effective PR ma
>
> >> Bit late to back-pedal now, Barmy. You said he organised weird sex
> >> parties, remember? Want me to post the quote?
>
> >I thought you claimed to be a journalist?
>
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/pressandpublishing.observ...
>
> Did no-one ever explain to you, Barmy, that repeating someone else's
> libel is tantamount to making up one of your own? It's no defence that
> someone else said it first. I'd have thought you'd know that, seeing
> as you've taken legal advice on the subject from some bloke down the
> pub who assured you you had a good case once, before vanishing like
> the snow before the sun when it looked as if you might go ahead with
> one of your lunatic complaints.
>
> Anyway it's not for me to haul your chestnuts out of the fire at this
> stage. It's all gone too far. Max is informed, I'm unrepentant, your
> words are fixed in the archive forever. There's not much any of us can
> do. We're all locked into a progression of doom like something out of
> a film by Bergman, which is a reference you won't get of course,
> because you've only ever seen one film in your life.
>
> I shall think of you when you're gone, Barmy. Which is more than your
> wife will do, poor woman. Or your kids, who will no longer have any
> excuse to pretend to be autistic just to avoid you and your unwelcome
> attentions, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
If you can stop obsessing about me, my wife and my children for five
minutes, please could you explain how I libelled MC when he himself
admitted in interview that he had arranged the sex parties you denied
he had?
rosie
"Nutter Cracker" <nutter.nutterc...@gmail.com> wrote
> And how will it feel when your nemesis does what you failed to do all
> along? I have a feeling Max is well disposed to take this further.
> Shall I tell you why I think so?
>
> No. Not for the moment. I'll let you stew.
>
i know from our emails that max has a handicapped child
Those of us who care for handicapped kids either cope.
Or we don't. Barker doesn't. He's drowning in a sea of
responsibility. Perhaaps he's just overwhelmed by the
sheer magnitude of the challenge. It's big and it's overwhelming.
However, I could never imagine it so big and overwhelming that
you have to google people on usenet and try to get them sacked
from their jobs.
Maybe it's just me I don't know/ I've had loads of folks piss me
off, but I've neve felt the need to try and ruin their lves, their
future, or to interfere in their work.
Hey/. That's just me. Live and let live.
The Laughing Gnome
<nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:51:29 -0800 (PST), in uk.media.tv.misc The
> Let's leave it to the jury to decide who admitted what, shall we?
>
> You said plenty of other things.
>
> Max isn't short of a bob or two. He's probably a good deal more
> amenable to ripping you a new one that were some of the people you
> contacted in regard to other people.
>
> Let's face it, Barmy. You've pursued a number of people from Usenet,
> and never once achieved a result. How does it feel to be such an
> impotent loser?
>
> And how will it feel when your nemesis does what you failed to do all
> along? I have a feeling Max is well disposed to take this further.
> Shall I tell you why I think so?
>
> No. Not for the moment. I'll let you stew.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Alan Hope of Flanders Today aka Nutter Cracker.
What a sad figure of a man you cut, spewing hollow threats in the hope
of intimidating an enemy. Call yourself a professional journalist?
You're a broken, drunken shell of a man. You can't even open a link
that validates claims you claim are untrue and libellous.
[Google 'Circus Maximus' and 'Carole Cadwalladr' and it'll be returned
as the top result.]
Juries. Lawyers. Innuendo. Max Clifford. It's all desperate bluff from
a man so deluded he clings to imaginary scenarios.
How I pity your family, friends and colleagues, Mr Hope. You're
embarrassing them as well as yourself.
PS. I have saved some of your posts along with their original headers
so that I can prove to Derek Blyth, your ISP and possibly even the
Flemish authorities that you - Alan Hope - are responsible for 'Nutter
Cracker's' very offensive posts.
The Laughing Gnome
> "Nutter Cracker" <nutter.nuttercracker.crac...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > And how will it feel when your nemesis does what you failed to do all
> > along? I have a feeling Max is well disposed to take this further.
> > Shall I tell you why I think so?
>
> > No. Not for the moment. I'll let you stew.
>
> i know from our emails that max has a handicapped child
Oh, for f**k's sake....
This info is public knowledge. It's featured in the Wiki entry and
it's been freely discussed by MC in book and interview. You don't have
any emails. In fact, I'm starting to think MC should know about the
claims you and Alan Hope are making, using his name to try and
threaten other people.
Oh, and for someone who claims to work with disabled people (as you
do, though I am personally sure this is just another Rosemary lie),
you seem to be ignorant of the fact that we don't use the term
handicapped any more, because some people find it offensive. 'Special
needs' is the term of choice, 'disabled' is a poor second, and
'handicapped' is one that latter day professionals just don't use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm
> Those of us who care for handicapped kids either cope.
> Or we don't. Barker doesn't. He's drowning in a sea of
> responsibility. Perhaaps he's just overwhelmed by the
> sheer magnitude of the challenge. It's big and it's overwhelming.
You're bluffing it again.
My wife and I have been managing care for two profoundly disabled
children for several years now. We certainly don't advice from a
dishonest internet pundit who is lying about her knowledge and
experience of special needs.
Remember when you claimed that autism was in invisible, minor
condition? That was your first high profile gaffe. Since then we've
all seen the documentaries on East European orphanages which are full
of children with ASD.
> However, I could never imagine it so big and overwhelming that
> you have to google people on usenet and try to get them sacked
> from their jobs.
>
If someone posts malicious lies about you on the internet from a works
pc when they are meant to be working then they should expect the
worst. Besides, as any employer would tell you, this might constitute
gross misconduct, so if anyone is resonsible for someone being sacked,
it is either the employer or the employee foolish enough to break the
rules. The person who reports the abuse is merely a messenger.
> Maybe it's just me I don't know/ I've had loads of folks piss me
> off, but I've neve felt the need to try and ruin their lves, their
> future, or to interfere in their work.
>
We'll just have to take your word for that, won't we, Rosemary The
Chronic Liar?
> Hey/. That's just me. Live and let live.
Except that it isn't you.
The Laughing Gnome
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), The Laughing Gnome
>
> <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >people respected their integrity and it presumably helped other gay
> >people by virtue of the fact it validated their sexual inclination.
>
>
> >And today celebrities such as Morrissey, George Michael and Michael
> >Stipe prove conclusively that 'coming out' has no detrimental effect
> >on their careers.
>
> how much better they did in the charts after 'coming out', compared to
> when they were 'straight'?
>
> >Others have suggested that he may not be as heterosexual as
> >he claims to be so it is singularly odd that no reference to this is
> >made at Wikipedia, all the more so because his female partners are
> >referenced.
>
> but maybe they're trying to deal with fact (however tedious) rather
> than heresay amd gossip. As in, "Cowell was spotted with
> [interchangeable bimbo #17]" rather than "Cowell may be gay".
>
> >Furthermore, it is a generally accepted fact that in
> >Hollywood, gay men hide their sexuality because of homophobic
> >prejudice amongst cinema-goers.
>
> on careers? Now you're saying it's a "fact" that people hide their
> gayness because of bigoted cinema-goers.
>
> >Money is the bottom line here. I don't think it should be,
>
> money. Do you also apply it to yourself when the missus asks you to
> get a job?
>
> >If SC is gay - and
> >as I've said repeatedly, the evidence that has surfaced is pure
> >conjecture, as it would be given MC's effective PR management
>
> press everyone would be talking about how Simon Cowell is gay.
>
> >I
> >personally do not think it would harm his reputation. Sure, he might
> >lose some money in America, but how millions does he need?
>
Just out of interest, what's your take on "Rosie" and "Carol Newby"?
Real people who tell the truth....or is there something fishy about
them?
osc
> Just out of interest, what's your take on "Rosie" and "Carol Newby"?
>
> Real people who tell the truth....or is there something fishy about
> them?
Rosie - I've seen nothing to make me think she's anything other than a
genuine poster who has been around a long time now.
Carol Newby - pretty obviously someone taking the piss out of you.
There's not even the slightest *attempt* to hide it from anyone not
retarded. Sherlock.
You're like a dribbling buffoon at a party - about 10 steps behind the
conversation, and forever latching onto the transparently obvious "Ahaa!"
as if you suddenly discovered what everyone else was missing.
rosie
"The Laughing Gnome" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote
> you seem to be ignorant of the fact that we don't use the term
> handicapped any more, because some people find it offensive. 'Special
> needs' is the term of choice, 'disabled' is a poor second, and
> 'handicapped' is one that latter day professionals just don't use.
You are new to these shores. It is a very sad place to be.
But those of us who can face reality can use the word 'handicapped'
Don't kid yourself. When my daughter was first described as having
'special needs' I was right out of my pram. She doesn't have
special needs! She is totally and uterly helpless!
She can't talk. She can do nothing at all, for herself.
That's not having special needs. That's being quite
severely handicapped.
Anyway who is the great 'we'? You mean 'you'
Sorry me old fruit. I'm not ignorant of all those terms.
I was there 20 years before you. You might want to hide
behind a diagnosis of 'special needs' or a 'mental disability'
I do not find the term 'mentally handicapped' in any way offensive.
I don't really care if you want to call a child special needs, or disabled.
My daughter is mentally handicapped.
I feel no shame, admitting that.
Mentally handicapped. It's what she is, And I have come to terms with it.
.See, the issue here, is that you think I should not call my daughter
handicapped,
because some people might find it offensive.
It might surprise you that I find the term 'Special Needs' quite offensive.
I really do. I would much rather my daughter was described as being mentally
handicapped, rather than having 'special needs' 'Special needs' comes
nowhere
close to covering the 24 hour 7 days a week care that I have to commit to
her upkeep.
I bet you have people in to help, don't you?
Oh yes you do. You are the sort of person who'd write to everybody
complaining. But I bet you have ladies who come in during the day, to
clean up and stuff,.
I don't :)
osc
> Anyway who is the great 'we'? You mean 'you' Sorry me old fruit. I'm
> not ignorant of all those terms. I was there 20 years before you. You
> might want to hide behind a diagnosis of 'special needs' or a 'mental
> disability'
Barker's kids do have special needs... they need a decent father.
rosie
"Froot Bat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
> I thought I recalled Barker accusing Rosie of being someone associated
> with Max Clifford a while back, but a brief check of Google groups
> says it might have been someone called Lucy, though from what I can
> see Rosie was involved in the discussion too, and Angus Rodgers was
> coincidentally around as well.
Yeah, well, the whole point of the exercise is to engage Barker in pointless
pursuits. Gives him something to do.
rosie
"Froot Bat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
> Carol was such a deliberately obvious sock I'm sure I've lost some
> braincells just stating it, but unless I misread, Barker claims to
> know who Rosie is (and her husband), so I'm not sure why he's asking
> if she is real or not. FWIW, I don't necessarily believe everything
> she says, but ya never know.
I thought the same. About Carol, I mean.
You are sensible not to take everything I say at face value,
because some of the things I say are tongue in cheek. However,everything
I say has truth at its core, maybe with a bit of embellishment for
the sake of drama or amusement, but nevertheless, I feel confident
that a jury would find in my favour, that I've never told a word of a lie.
It might seem odd, say, that I claim that my daughter has been a maths
student at Warwick, then a law student at Guildford, then a maths student
again in Bath. That she has a degree in maths, a diploma in law, and is
now doing an MSc in maths at Bath.
That all sounds like lies and and more lies and even further lies.
Well I wish it was. Our retirement fund is dwindling.
Why would I bother making it up?
rosie
"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote
> You forgot the Sorbonne?
So I bloody well did.
It was actually the pierre et marie curie
where she did the Erasmus thingy.
Thanks for reminding me. I lose track
of where all our money has gone.
Ian F.
news:f7jdp51ph7l3pq7tu...@4ax.com...
> You forgot the Sorbonne?
And the painting she stole from Picasso.
Ian