Howard Oakley - Get Stuffed!
Gareth Alun Evans
Howard,
Grow up.
Get Stuffed.
See you in court?
Will you ensure that your solicitor is well aware that the first words in
the exchange came from you, in that you referred to me as an "egotistical
despot"?
--------oooooo-------
Is the British Medical Association aware of the way in which you are
bringing the medical profession into disrepute by initiating a slanging
match, and then crying like a spoilt brat when you get a reply?
Perhaps you could publish the address and contact details in this newsgroup,
if you are so sure of your ground?
Perhaps you could also publish the editorial address for your local
newspaper?
Howard Oakley
In article <887987407.10397.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
"Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[contents removed]
I strenuously deny Mr Evans' further allegations about my professional
conduct, and again require retraction and apology for a further and even
more serious defamation.
Howard Oakley.
Gareth Alun Evans
[contents removed]
Sorry, Howard, I could not decode your enciphered details of the location of
the British Medical Association. No matter - I have a brother and a nephew
who are medics - I can get it from them.
-----ooooo-----
I strenuously deny "Dr" Oakley's allegations that I have made allegations
about his professional conduct.
"Dr" Oakley is clearly committing a serious libel by implying such, and I
require a retraction and apology for this serious defamation of me.
"Dr" Oakley's previous remarks ("egotistical despot") are clearly
libellous, and I require a retraction and apology for his serious defamation
of me.
Is "Dr" Oakley seriously suggesting that his making of such remarks is
"professional conduct"?
Gareth Alun Evans
IS THIS MAN A _COMPLETE_ IDIOT?
How someone expects to dive into a discussion with both feet, hurling
insults at me, when he has not been involved up to the point of his jumping
in; and then bleat like a spoilt child about defamatory statements is quite
beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr Evans,
1. I e-mailed you privately regarding two defamatory postings to the
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup. In case you did not receive that e-mail, I
repeat it here:
>Mr Evans,
>
>In two articles posted to the Internet Newsgroup uk.radio.amateur, you
>have attempted to defame my professional reputation. I quote the headers
>and offending sections below.
>
>1. In
>
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur
>Subject: Re: HRT / RSGB ???
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:29:47 -0000
>Message-ID: <887551881.10448.3...@news.demon.co.uk>
>References:
><I+FcsBAC...@g7etw.demon.co.uk><aGjEnRAQ...@g3nks.demon.co.uk>
><199802051...@zetnet.co.uk><886692919.1207.0.nnrp-03.9e98250c@news.
>demon.co.uk><DS1CCQAK...@g3nks.demon.co.uk><886782366.19127.0.nnrp-09
>.9e98...@news.demon.co.uk><n$3bpAAGZ...@g3nks.demon.co.uk><886882995.
>17085.1.nnrp...@news.demon.co.uk>
>><WJj3kdAU...@g3nks.demon.co.uk
><887412204.9550.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><B10B9282...@quercus.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk [158.152.37.12]
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Lines: 38
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk uk.radio.amateur:40436
>
>you wrote:
>
>>Uuuum... I asked questions of Derek, from which he wriggled out. Perhaps
you
>>would care to attack him first, and then come on to me? Is your diagnosis
of
>>your patients as careful as your diagnosis of this thread? God help them,
if
>>so.
>
>2. In
>
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur
>Subject: Re: HRT / RSGB ???
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:57:06 -0000
>Message-ID: <887551883.10448.4...@news.demon.co.uk>
>References:
><I+FcsBAC...@g7etw.demon.co.uk><aGjEnRAQ...@g3nks.demon.co.uk>
><199802051...@zetnet.co.uk><886692919.1207.0.nnrp-03.9e98250c@news.
>demon.co.uk><DS1CCQAK...@g3nks.demon.co.uk><886782366.19127.0.nnrp-09
>.9e98...@news.demon.co.uk><n$3bpAAGZ...@g3nks.demon.co.uk><886882995.
>17085.1.nnrp...@news.demon.co.uk><WJj3kdAU...@g3nks.demon.co
>.uk><887412204.9550.0...@news.demon.co.uk><h7QaYJAjdV50EwXo@
>g3nks.demon.co.uk><887450413.20043.2...@news.demon.co.uk>
><jn+a$CAZdp...@g3nks.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk [158.152.37.12]
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Lines: 88
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk uk.radio.amateur:40437
>
>you wrote:
>
>>My blood pressure is normal...perhaps in your ability to measure
>>blood-pressure merely by reading the Internetted-word you have the same
>>diagnosis skill as Dr.Oakley?
>
>Such remarks stepped well beyond the realms of personal abuse which
>regretfully seem customary in that and other newsgroups, and attempt to
>damage my professional reputation, a matter which is of great concern to
>me, as past and future patients of mine could easily read those messages
>directly.
>
>In view of this, I require you to publish in the same newsgroup an
>explicit and unreserved retraction of those above-quoted remarks, together
>with an apology for your foolish actions in making such defamatory remarks.
>
>If you should fail to publish such a retraction within a reasonable period
>of time - I'd suggest 48 hours - then I regret that I will place the
>matter in the hands of a solicitor, so that he can pursue the retraction
>more forcefully, or legal redress if such retraction is still not
>forthcoming.
>
>Please note that I am copying this private letter to Demon's Service Abuse
>Report address so that your (and my) Internet Service Provider is aware of
>what has taken place.
>
>Sincerely,
>Howard Oakley.
2. Today I see that you have not only refused to retract those messages,
but you have published a further message which makes a very serious
defamatory statement. I quote the message in full:
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur
>Subject: Howard Oakley - Get Stuffed!
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:17:11 -0000
>Message-ID: <887987407.10397.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk [158.152.37.12]
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Lines: 31
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk uk.radio.amateur:40806
3. Are you claiming that I have defamed you in any way? If so, please
specify what you consider to be defamatory, and what damages you claim to
be suffering as a consequence.
4. I require an immediate retraction of your grossly defamatory claim
that I am "bringing the medical profession into disrepute". This
retraction is to be in a similar manner as the two required above,
together with a complete and unreserved apology, and an undertaking not
to publish any similar defamatory material concerning myself.
5. The British Medical Association is a trade union. Should you wish to
make allegations about the inadequacy of my professional conduct, then
you should do so to the General Medical Council, whose address and
contact details are published in reference volumes (such as Whitaker's
Almanac) available in public libraries.
6. If you care to read the messages, you will see that it was you who
started the whole matter by insulting Derek Thom, who has clearly been
deeply offended, judging by his subsequent postings. However, on several
other occasions you have taken it upon yourself to hurl invective at me.
If you wish, I will send you a compilation. The major difference is that
those were 'simply' personal insults, as I stated in my earlier e-mail to
you. I have already endeavoured to explain to you that your vile
defamation of my professional reputation is a completely different
matter, and is viewed in law as such too. I exhort you to consult a
professional lawyer before making any further published comment.
7. My local newspaper is the Isle of Wight County Press. You will find
their address in Willings' Press Guide and other reference works in your
local library. But I warn you that they are extremely sensitive about
libelling individuals, so any defamatory messages which you care to send
them are likely to land on their lawyer's desk and not go to print.
8. If I do not receive the retractions and apologies which I have
required above by noon on Monday 23 February 1998, I shall make a formal
representation to you in writing. I shall also be requesting your
Internet Service Provider to consider whether they should continue to
enable your illegal defamatory activities, and once again am copying this
to them so that they are aware.
Yours sincerely,
Howard Oakley.
Dr Howard Oakley * M1BWR: active on 2 m SSB, starting on 6 m
EHN & DIJ Oakley * Internet how...@quercus.demon.co.uk
Brooklands Lodge * CompuServe 70734,120
Park View Close * CIX hoakley
Wroxall, Ventnor * voice +44 1983 853605
Isle of Wight, PO38 3EQ, UK * fax +44 1983 853253
Paul LeMasonry
The message <887987407.10397.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
from "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk> contains
these words:
> Howard,
> Grow up.
> Get Stuffed.
> See you in court?
> Will you ensure that your solicitor is well aware that the first words in
Gentleman, gentleman, pick up your rattles and retire gracefully!
Just out of interest and I may be wrong, as someone will want to
correct me, but it is my understanding that the laws regarding libel
are purely directed at the "Printed" word, ie that which is published
on paper and available to the general public.
To win a case the plaintiff has to prove some form of damages to his
character or social standing and would cost many thousands of pounds
to get the case to court, let alone get it heard. Hence it being
known as a richmans priviledge.
It has not, as I was advised last year, yet been extended to include
the electronic version of the printed word and therefore in legal
terms, one can write what one likes about a person or organisation,
as they have no recourse in law. Your windows may need replacing, but
that could be another story ;-)
I always have a little chuckle when I see the words LIBEL banded
about on this and packet modes, as it amounts to nothing but hot air!
--
Cheers for now.
///////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\ ////
//// Paul \\\\
\\\\ g1...@zetnet.co.uk ////
//// \\\\
\\\\ Web site ////
//// http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/LeMasonry \\\\
\\\\ ////
//// \\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////
Holder of the amateur radio callsigns G1CQX and M0AZP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Oakley
In article <199802202...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Paul LeMasonry <g1...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Just out of interest and I may be wrong, as someone will want to
>correct me, but it is my understanding that the laws regarding libel
>are purely directed at the "Printed" word, ie that which is published
>on paper and available to the general public.
The distinction normally is whether the offending item is seen or heard.
Libel tends to be seen (and thus includes films etc.) whilst slander is
heard as ordinary speech. However, I don't think that I specified the form
of any defamation anywhere - I think it was Gareth, or others, who decided
that his postings were libellous :-)
>To win a case the plaintiff has to prove some form of damages to his
>character or social standing and would cost many thousands of pounds
>to get the case to court, let alone get it heard. Hence it being
>known as a richmans priviledge.
Although there are forms of insurance which cover this, and now that
lawyers are permitted to work for a percentage of damages (I believe), you
do not necessarily need to put much money up front. Indeed, Sir John
Donaldson (in 1985) said that the boot was on the *other* foot, in
remarking that "it is only the very rich, the very foolish, the very
malicious or the very dedicated who will knowingly put themselves in a
position in which they have to defend a libel action". Having once been
threatened with a 'cease and desist order' (regarding use of a trademark)
from a legal department, I tend to withdraw and apologise first and lick
wounds afterwards. Maybe I'm not very rich, very foolish, very malicious or
very dedicated :-)
>It has not, as I was advised last year, yet been extended to include
>the electronic version of the printed word and therefore in legal
>terms, one can write what one likes about a person or organisation,
>as they have no recourse in law. Your windows may need replacing, but
>that could be another story ;-)
I do not know who advised you, but that is not true as I am given to
understand it. A lot of Internet users consider that they are beyond the
law, but there are plenty of legal battles which have taken place over such
matters - and some actions have succeeded. But there are other less messy
remedies: only last week, for example, it was announced by the British
Computer Society (in Computer Weekly) that it had disciplined six members
for various offences including "using language that could be interpreted as
defamatory or racist" on the Internet, and one reprimand has been "held up
by court action" (which sounds as if it concerns defamation, although I
could be wrong). There are peculiar problems relating to proof of
defamation from electronic messages in a court of law, but those are
matters of concern to lawyers rather than the principle of applicability of
law.
Perhaps someone would like to run a little test here, by making a really
gross libel of someone rich and famous - I don't think I'd even contemplate
trying it!
>I always have a little chuckle when I see the words LIBEL banded
>about on this and packet modes, as it amounts to nothing but hot air!
Court action is thankfully very much less common than 'retract and
apologise'. But the latter usually requires common sense, decency and
courage, or the promise of serious unpleasantness. Maybe I was in
Cloudcuckooland hoping for the former?
>Cheers for now.
73,
Howard.
Clint Sharp
OI!!!!!
Why can't the pair of you grow up! If you aren't capable of playing
nicely, may I suggest that you don't play at all.
Glen Ross
The message <888000808.21883.1...@news.demon.co.uk>
> "Dr" Oakley's previous remarks ("egotistical despot") are clearly
> libellous, and I require a retraction and apology for his serious defamation
> of me.
> Is "Dr" Oakley seriously suggesting that his making of such remarks is
> "professional conduct"?
_____________________________________________
I seriously suggest that you two children should grow up or take your
slanging match somewhere else. UK.kiddy-winkies.tantrums seems a
good place to start.
Glen.
Gareth Alun Evans
This is a public forum. "Dr" Oakley initiated an abusive, provocative tirade
against me in this forum. I claim the right of reply. I decline the
invitation to retreat into a private correspondence. I elect that all
communication be as public as the initiating remarks of "Dr" Oakley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
I will not pretend to not being rattled by "Dr" Oakley.
More from my state of nervousness, rather than his suggestion, I have now
consulted a solicitor.
The opinion of my solicitor, for what it is worth, (Actually £160+VAT for
two hours' consultancy), is that "Dr" Oakley initiated the problem by
publicly and freely joining a discussion and uttering certain abusive and
provocative remarks. His opinion is that my response was as the result of
provocation, and will be seen as such by the courts.
His opinion is that it was "Dr"Oakley who introduced the topic of
professional behaviour by signing himself as such in his "signature".
My solicitor states that the case will rest on the following :-
(1)"Dr" Oakley made a gratuitous offensive remark, "You demand the right to
be as offensive as you like"
(2)I objected by saying "This is not true........I have never demanded the
right to be offensive".
(3)"Dr"Oakley THEN PUBLICLY RETRACTED HIS REMAR||K, by saying "No, but
you....."
Ie, "Dr" Oakley made a public libellous remark. "Dr" Oakley then publicly
retracted his remark. "Dr"Oakley's behaviour will put him clearly in the
wrong, in the view of the courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
I have also approached my brother who is a consultant paediatrician. (I
needed to some excuse to speak to him for the first time in 12 years!). He
has agreed with the solicitor, that "Dr" Oakleys declaration of his
profession, in the same article in which he initiated an abusive tirade will
be viewed with great concern by those who regulate the medical profession.
My brother has offered to initiate the necessary administrative proceedings
for me, but I have asked to hold off for the moment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have also approached Demon Internet about the matter. For anyone's
interest, the reference number given by abuse@demon..... is 19983.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Evans,
1. First, this is a private e-mail. Please do not post it in a public
place. I will not be tedious about claiming copyright over its contents,
but put my trust in you to keep it confidential to yourself.
2. I quote your recent postings in the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup:
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur
>Subject: Re: Howard Oakley - Get Stuffed!
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:52:45 -0000
>Message-ID: <888000808.21883.1...@news.demon.co.uk>
>References: <887987407.10397.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><B11372319...@quercus.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk [158.152.37.12]
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Lines: 27
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk uk.radio.amateur:40819
>
>
>[contents removed]
>
>Sorry, Howard, I could not decode your enciphered details of the location
of
>the British Medical Association. No matter - I have a brother and a nephew
>who are medics - I can get it from them.
>
> -----ooooo-----
>
>I strenuously deny "Dr" Oakley's allegations that I have made allegations
>about his professional conduct.
>
>"Dr" Oakley is clearly committing a serious libel by implying such, and I
>require a retraction and apology for this serious defamation of me.
>
>"Dr" Oakley's previous remarks ("egotistical despot") are clearly
>libellous, and I require a retraction and apology for his serious
defamation
>of me.
>
>Is "Dr" Oakley seriously suggesting that his making of such remarks is
>"professional conduct"?
3. I clearly stated that your reference to the British Medical
Association is misplaced. I am not a member. They have no jurisdiction
over me. They have no jurisdiction over claims of professional
misconduct. For doctors registered in the UK, the professional body which
is concerned with such matters is the General Medical Council. It has
disciplinary committees and the power and authority to consider
allegations of professional misconduct. You will find their address in
most major reference books. Complaining to the BMA will get you nowhere,
other than their informing you of the same information.
4. Do you therefore deny that you posted the three messages in the
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup in which defamatory allegations were made
about me? (The three messages are those which I have previously
referenced.)
5. As you have received that previous message, in which I quoted the
three postings, you will kindly answer the questions which I put to you
regarding any allegation of yours regarding defamation. For your
reference, they were:
>3. Are you claiming that I have defamed you in any way? If so, please
>specify what you consider to be defamatory, and what damages you claim to
>be suffering as a consequence.
6. Until such time as you have answered those, I regret that I cannot
consider whether to withdraw any previous message which I posted.
However, and without prejudice, I would give serious consideration to
mutual withdrawal - that is to say that I would entertain withdrawing a
previous message of mine, and apologising, if you were to withdraw and
apologise over *all* the messages of yours (i.e. the three I quoted plus
the two new ones now quoted in this e-mail). That offer is made, I
reiterate, without prejudice and in good faith.
7. Regarding your final question, regarding professional conduct, I do
not think what is said in this newsgroup has any bearing on professional
conduct. As you well know, uk.radio.amateur concerns itself with a hobby
which has nothing whatsoever to do with my profession. I did not bring my
profession into this particular debate - but I would remind you that it
was you who decided that he would involve my profession, by making
defamatory allegations about my professional abilities and then conduct.
"Professional conduct" means one's behaviour whilst acting in one's
professional capacity. Here I am but another (very new) amateur, and
therefore am no more acting in my professional capacity that I would be
when in the pub, or shopping in the supermarket. Certain *criminal*
offences are normally assumed to have a bearing on a doctor's ability to
carry out his/her profession. I am not aware that I have ever committed
any of them.
Now to the next posting:
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
>From: "Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur
>Subject: Howard Oakley - Get Stuffed!
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:19:48 -0000
>Message-ID: <888002468.5684.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk [158.152.37.12]
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Lines: 209
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk uk.radio.amateur:40822
>
>IS THIS MAN A _COMPLETE_ IDIOT?
>
>How someone expects to dive into a discussion with both feet, hurling
>insults at me, when he has not been involved up to the point of his jumping
>in; and then bleat like a spoilt child about defamatory statements is quite
>beyond me.
[quotation of my private e-mail to you excerpted]
8. Please do not - ever - publish e-mail which I send you in a public
place, such as a newsgroups, without asking me first. If I wish to send
you e-mail, then I will do so. If I wish to post a message to the
newsgroup, I will do that instead. Please allow me to decide.
9. I notice that you did not even do me the common courtesy of removing
my private signature, containing my phone number and full postal address,
from that wholesale quotation. You were either careless or deliberately
malicious in doing so. Here, then, is what I believe your personal
details to be:
Mr Gareth Alun Evans, G4SDW
13, Hardens Close,
Chippenham,
SN15 3AA
10. Perhaps you'd be good enough to confirm your IARU locator and WAB
squares whilst we're about it, so that I can correct my copy of the
Callbook if necessary (remembering recent postings)? The ones I have here
are
IO81WK and ST97
11. Next, you'll be pleased to know that "idiot" is a word (among others)
which *your* previous postings in uk.radio.amateur have attracted, so
I'll bow to your previous experience of the opinion of others in this
matter.
12. Regarding my posting in that thread in the newsgroup, I wasn't aware
of any particular qualification which was required to join in a thread.
Maybe you'd like to tell me of one? I expressed an opinion. You not only
disagreed with me - which is fine, and not unexpected! - but chose to
insert into that disagreement certain remarks which had nothing
whatsoever to do with my posting, nor the thread, but were purely
gratuitous defamations against my professional abilities. You have had a
go before, in a different thread, but were more subtle, relying entirely
on your characteristic innuendo. Typically, this includes allegations of
hypocrisy. Well, I have no problem with trading plain insults with you,
Mr Evans. You'll get back as good as you give. But making specific
defamatory allegations about my professional abilities are a much more
serious matter. For a start, they are cowardly, because you know that,
short of going to law, there is nothing whatsoever that I can do to
counter them. Many years ago, when I was knee-high to a ward sister, I
was given advice by a Barrister and Doctor, who is now a very eminent
man. He told us that we should never accept defamation of our
professional reputation. As I have said elsewhere, professional
reputation can take decades to establish, but a few words to demolish. As
my professional reputation is my livelihood - it brings in the money
which feeds my family - your attack was not just an attack on me, but on
my work, and my family. I therefore have no recourse but to treat it
seriously. I do not know whether you are a professional person, Mr Evans,
but I feel that if you are one, you will appreciate the importance of
this.
13. I trust that the above paragraph explains my concern about what you
attempt to denigrate in terms of 'bleating like a spoilt child'. And if
you really felt that about it, why are you not ignoring the whole thing -
why go on to publish further defamatory remarks, and prolong the
embarassment of everyone in witnessing your mistakes? Why make your own
allegations of defamation when you claim that 'bleating' about defamation
is "beyond" you? Are you not being entirely hypocritical here? Or are you
just being completely two-faced, as you were to Derek Thom?
Please respond to this e-mail by e-mail, and do not publish it in the
newsgroup. I have made a genuine offer in good faith which I believe will
settle this increasingly irrelevant issue. Only a truly contemptuous
individual would ignore it.
Gareth Alun Evans
Glen Ross wrote in message <199802211...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>
>I seriously suggest that you two children should grow up or take your
>slanging match somewhere else. UK.kiddy-winkies.tantrums seems a
>good place to start.
>
The phrase "you two children" appears to be both childish and abusive.
You remark therefore appears to be hypocritical. (Would you, by any chance,
be a member of the RSCB?)
Glen Ross
The message <888065525.13314.1...@news.demon.co.uk>
> Glen Ross wrote in message <199802211...@zetnet.co.uk>...
> >
> >I seriously suggest that you two children should grow up
> The phrase "you two children" appears to be both childish and abusive.
The phrase is true, they are both not only the children of their
parents but are also demonstrating what can only be construed as
childish behaviour, for example the *my solicitor is bigger than your
solicitor* attitude.
> You remark therefore appears to be hypocritical.
It is an accurate statement of their parental connection and
perceived behaviour. How can it be hypocritical??
(Would you, by any chance, be a member of the RSCB?)
Not your concern, is it?? But only a childish person would ask if I
am a member of what he knows to be a non-existent society. One which
I think you invented so as to have a child's toy to play with??
Glen.
Mike Gibson
Can you please go and waste bandwidth elsewhere. this group is about radio
not your tedious little altercation. Although it is marginally better than
Coronation Street.
Mike
<masses of irrelevant to this newsgroup stuff cut>
Jon Harris
Gareth Alun Evans wrote:
>
> This is a public forum. "Dr" Oakley initiated an abusive, provocative tirade
> against me in this forum. I claim the right of reply. I decline the
> invitation to retreat into a private correspondence. I elect that all
> communication be as public as the initiating remarks of "Dr" Oakley.
I would respectfully suggest that both parties are doing substantially
more harm to their OWN reputation by what they are now, than anything
that the other party has said.
Many people missed the original post and the vaste majority would've
ignored it anyway. If both parties wish to shine the spotlight on
themselves in such a way then only they can be held responsible for
their
ever declining reputation.
David B.
A. non Eyemouse
<snipped>
This OM, apparently.
https://eclecticlight.co/
--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.