Health & Efficiency
Suzanne Piper
about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
"Word has got around that Health and Efficiency, under their new
editorship, are planning to increase their 'sleazy' advertsing.
This advertsing will be in a seperate pull-out section in the centre of
the magazine, so that those naturists offended by it will be able to
remove it.
This begs several questions;
Do naturists wish to pay for a magazine, part of which they feel obliged
to throw away?
Do naturists wants their movement to be supported by sleazy advertsing?
Do we want in the movement, those who buy the magazine for sleazy ads,
then remove same, then use the dosctored magazine to claim they are
genuine naturists?
Will subscribers who receive this material through the post, be obliged
to censor the magazine from their families until the offending material
has been removed?
Will we within the movement, look down on H&E readers, thinking they
only bought it for the sleaze, even though this has been removed? After
all, no one can prove they never read it before they destroyed it!
Would it be worthwhile making a plea to H&E to remove this advertsising
once and for all? Anybody feel like writing to H&E (or e-mailing the
new editor) and explaining that while we find this material simply sad
rather than anything else, we don't want the scene the advertsising
represents construed by the public who buy H&E to be part of naturism?"
I not altered the contents of the fax and would welcome comments from
fellow members of the newsgroup or perhaps even a denial or confirmation
from the publishers of H&E as to future policy.
--
Suzanne Piper
MARC
> I received a fax this morning from a naturist who is rather concerned
> about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
ie rumours
>
> "Word has got around that Health and Efficiency, under their new
> editorship, are planning to increase their 'sleazy' advertsing.
More rumours and subjective opinion
>
> This advertsing will be in a seperate pull-out section in the centre of
> the magazine, so that those naturists offended by it will be able to
> remove it.
Even more rumours and subjective opinion
>
> This begs several questions;
> Do naturists wish to pay for a magazine, part of which they feel obliged
> to throw away?
No
> Do naturists wants their movement to be supported by sleazy advertsing?
Who's definition of sleazy?
> Do we want in the movement, those who buy the magazine for sleazy ads,
> then remove same, then use the dosctored magazine to claim they are
> genuine naturists?
Not a vaild question based as it is on subjective opinion of sleazy and
as non e yet has come up with a diffinition of genuine naturists apart
from " tone " of course who believed it was anyone who agreed with him.
> Will subscribers who receive this material through the post, be obliged
> to censor the magazine from their families until the offending material
> has been removed?
Depends on individual subscribers
> Will we within the movement, look down on H&E readers, thinking they
> only bought it for the sleaze, even though this has been removed? After
> all, no one can prove they never read it before they destroyed it!
The questioner probably will ! There again he/she problably already
looks down on a lot of other people as well
>
> Would it be worthwhile making a plea to H&E to remove this advertsising
> once and for all? Anybody feel like writing to H&E (or e-mailing the
> new editor) and explaining that while we find this material simply sad
> rather than anything else, we don't want the scene the advertsising
> represents construed by the public who buy H&E to be part of naturism?"
No it would be worthwhile buying H&E if it didn't have the adverts or
telling the owners that you will boycott H&E if it has the adverts , but
either way you have to stick to your descion. A magazines advertising
revenue is derived from its attractivness to advertisers aiming at
selling their wares . If not enought people but the products the
advertisers dont spend any more money. If lots of people buy the
products /services then maybe the readership of the magazine is not the
one that " disgusted of Tunbridge Wells " thinks it is.
>
> I not altered the contents of the fax and would welcome comments from
> fellow members of the newsgroup or perhaps even a denial or confirmation
> from the publishers of H&E as to future policy.
I can't see H&E commenting on rumours.
Marc
JLE
Suzanne Piper wrote in message ...
>I received a fax this morning from a naturist who is rather concerned
>about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
>
>editorship, are planning to increase their 'sleazy' advertsing.
>
>the magazine, so that those naturists offended by it will be able to
>remove it.
>
>Do naturists wish to pay for a magazine, part of which they feel obliged
>to throw away?
Sorry we're not paying for it, the advitiser is !
>Do naturists wants their movement to be supported by sleazy advertsing?
Whats sleaz? My sleaz may not be your sleaz & vis-versa.
>Do we want in the movement, those who buy the magazine for sleazy ads,
Thay buy the mag for the pic anyway and all way have.
>then remove same, then use the dosctored magazine to claim they are
>genuine naturists?
>Will subscribers who receive this material through the post, be obliged
>to censor the magazine from their families until the offending material
>has been removed?
I think most naturist are open anout this sort of thing, so if it was seen
by the family ( by which I think you mean the kids ) it would be delt with
in the same open way.
>Will we within the movement, look down on H&E readers, thinking they
>only bought it for the sleaze, even though this has been removed?
Alot of 'the movement' do so already, so whats new !
>After
>all, no one can prove they never read it before they destroyed it!
>
>Would it be worthwhile making a plea to H&E to remove this advertsising
>once and for all?
And if thay did that how much would thay have to charge the mag ?
your might be talking about 5 to 10 £'s PER issue !!!!!! Or are yYOU prepard
to sign an adverting contract to cover the sort fall ?
And when H&E go's bust is the CCBN going to put BN in the shops ?
I don't think so, for all the same resons H&E have problems.
>Anybody feel like writing to H&E (or e-mailing the
>new editor) and explaining that while we find this material simply sad
>rather than anything else, we don't want the scene the advertsising
>represents construed by the public who buy H&E to be part of naturism?"
I'd like H&E to go back to how it was in the late '70's & early 80's but
this is whont happen,( I miss the club news, and true family coverage)
due to a lot of 'outside' pressures.
I also get the feeling that some WOULD prefer if H&E whent bust and died.
H&E has to sell, and sell well, to make monney so that thay can stay in the
shops.
>
>I not altered the contents of the fax and would welcome comments from
>fellow members of the newsgroup or perhaps even a denial or confirmation
>from the publishers of H&E as to future policy.
>--
>Suzanne Piper
I think this might realy be about who the new (REPORTED) editor is, I seem
to remember a bit of a battle some years ago.
Roger Davis
sales/subscription of copies. Advertising has long played a major role
in this revenue stream for all magazines.
However, I was somewhat suprised to see three or so adverts for gay
and couples only clubs in the 100th centenery edition.
There was a time where numerous of the 'massage' adverts were somewhat
detached from 'true' massage, this seems to have been cleared up, are
they returning to the old ways of generating business.
People will decide if they wish to buy H&E or not, if not, and the
advertising will raise no revenue for the advertisors then this
revenue stream will also stop and H&E will be vulnerable again.
In general the editorial content is cleaning up, although I'm stopping
taking the mag every month as the editorial content is somewhat stale,
I think I've read most articles in various guises a few times over the
years.
As for the rumour mill, I normally wait for the facts, or make my own
assesments, I've had various associates loose heavily due to
unfavourable and inaccurate rumours about their private and/or
professional lives.
I wish anyone success in their business, so long as they are fair and
play by the rules. Of course delivering a product that the market
wants is also an advantage!
RD
On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:32:16 +0100, Suzanne Piper
<suep...@naturisme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I received a fax this morning from a naturist who is rather concerned
>about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
>
>"Word has got around that Health and Efficiency, under their new
>editorship, are planning to increase their 'sleazy' advertsing.
>
>This advertsing will be in a seperate pull-out section in the centre of
>the magazine, so that those naturists offended by it will be able to
>remove it.
>
>This begs several questions;
>Do naturists wish to pay for a magazine, part of which they feel obliged
>to throw away?
>Do naturists wants their movement to be supported by sleazy advertsing?
>Do we want in the movement, those who buy the magazine for sleazy ads,
>then remove same, then use the dosctored magazine to claim they are
>genuine naturists?
>Will subscribers who receive this material through the post, be obliged
>to censor the magazine from their families until the offending material
>has been removed?
>Will we within the movement, look down on H&E readers, thinking they
>only bought it for the sleaze, even though this has been removed? After
>all, no one can prove they never read it before they destroyed it!
>
>Would it be worthwhile making a plea to H&E to remove this advertsising
>once and for all? Anybody feel like writing to H&E (or e-mailing the
>new editor) and explaining that while we find this material simply sad
>rather than anything else, we don't want the scene the advertsising
>represents construed by the public who buy H&E to be part of naturism?"
>
Callow
<suep...@naturisme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I not altered the contents of the fax and would welcome comments from
>fellow members of the newsgroup or perhaps even a denial or confirmation
>from the publishers of H&E as to future policy.
I've not answered Sue's 'questionaire' because for me it posed more
questions than just those asked. Several threads worth probably!
When I heard who the new editor was to be I thought then that rumour
would be rife about what format and direction the new magazine would
take, even wondered if it would soon incorporate "Starkers"......just
to start a new rumour!!!! <g> For all of that I think we must wait
and see.
Whatever happens the magazine must change IMO. The last few issues
were obviously aimed a much too narrow a target market, the genuine
naturist. Although I found some things of interest the whole was not
a good enough return on my small investment and I've not bothered to
seek out an edition since February. One of many who haven't I'd
hazard a guess.
Now I've no idea what Sue means by "sleaze", her "sleaze" may not be
my "sleaze", it might even be of interest to me although if we are
talking premuim rate phone numbers I'm with her. However if we are
talking about broadening the subject base to cover all aspects of
naturism and not just those of interest to "genuine" naturists then
I'm all for it.
As a lifestyle, leisure pursuit or ethos "naturism" in all it's guises
is vastly diverse, attracts all sorts and I see no reason why a
magazine about naturism as a whole shouldn't cater for that whole be
in by advertising, editorial policy or both. That's not even
considering commercial interests.
--
Terry
http://home.clara.net/callowhill/
http://home.clara.net/callowhill/nat.htm
Suzanne Piper
>Now I've no idea what Sue means by "sleaze", her "sleaze" may not be
>my "sleaze", it might even be of interest to me although if we are
>talking premuim rate phone numbers I'm with her. However if we are
>talking about broadening the subject base to cover all aspects of
>naturism and not just those of interest to "genuine" naturists then
>I'm all for it.
talking about when referring to 'sleaze' is an increase in the number of
personal contact and 'phone in ads.
I emphasise that what I posted was not of my writing. I just thought it
may promote useful discussion if the contents of this fax I received was
shared with you all and in good journalistic tradition am protecting my
sources.
--
Suzanne Piper
Mark Nisbet
Suzanne Piper wrote in message ...
>about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
Vaingloriousness (2)
Callow
<suep...@naturisme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have spoken to the person who sent me the fax and what they are
>talking about when referring to 'sleaze' is an increase in the number of
>personal contact and 'phone in ads.
Thanks. I have no problem with the former, not that I'll be using
them!! :-) The latter I just ignore anyway.
>I emphasise that what I posted was not of my writing. I just thought it
>may promote useful discussion if the contents of this fax I received was
>shared with you all and in good journalistic tradition am protecting my
>sources.
Again thank you. I had noted your 'disclaimer'. Seems that
discussion has commenced!! :-)
JLE
msouthg
<suep...@naturisme.demon.co.uk> writes
>I received a fax this morning from a naturist who is rather concerned
>about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
>
this is a "me too".
>"Word has got around that Health and Efficiency, under their new
>editorship, are planning to increase their 'sleazy' advertsing.
>
>This advertsing will be in a seperate pull-out section in the centre of
>the magazine, so that those naturists offended by it will be able to
>remove it.
>
>This begs several questions;
>Do naturists wish to pay for a magazine, part of which they feel obliged
>to throw away?
Does everyone who buys a Sunday newspaper read the business section AND
the sports section AND the fashion section AND the strip comic section?
(It's years since I bought a Sunday newspaper, so I have to assume they
are still like that.)
>Do naturists wants their movement to be supported by sleazy advertsing?
I'm not proud :-)
I was brought up to be frugal (No, not a character from the Magic
Roundabout).
>Do we want in the movement, those who buy the magazine for sleazy ads,
>then remove same, then use the dosctored magazine to claim they are
>genuine naturists?
No problem with me, so long as they do it in the privacy of their own
homes.
>Will subscribers who receive this material through the post, be obliged
>to censor the magazine from their families until the offending material
>has been removed?
Depends how the families have been brought up. I give no credence to any
claims that this kind of printed material is "corrupting". Learning how
diverse society is, is an education in itself.
>Will we within the movement, look down on H&E readers, thinking they
>only bought it for the sleaze, even though this has been removed?
No, at least I won't since I am in both of the first two categories.
> After
>all, no one can prove they never read it before they destroyed it!
>
As if I cared.
>Would it be worthwhile making a plea to H&E to remove this advertsising
>once and for all?
Wonderful thing, democracy.
> Anybody feel like writing to H&E (or e-mailing the
>new editor)
No.
> and explaining that while we find this material simply sad
Please don't "we" for me.
>rather than anything else, we don't want the scene the advertsising
>represents construed by the public who buy H&E to be part of naturism?"
>
That's rather patronising to "the public", don't you think?
Are we not members of the public?
Don't we all individually decide for ourselves where the boundaries are?
>I not altered the contents of the fax and would welcome comments from
>fellow members of the newsgroup or perhaps even a denial or confirmation
>from the publishers of H&E as to future policy.
Well, you got my comments!
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Rick Martin
>
> Suzanne Piper wrote in message ...
> >about information creeping down the grapevine about H&E.
>
I'm sorry, Mark, but we get only two posts from you in months, within
minutes of each other, each containing a single word - the SAME single
word - and doing nothing more than making unsubstantiated, denegrating
comments about a regular contributor to the group.
Your lack of contribution to this group is noted. Your contributions,
such as they are, are noted.
Rick
--
Please change 'abuse' to my first name if replying via email
Mark Nisbet
>Your lack of contribution to this group is noted. Your contributions,
>such as they are, are noted.
>
> Rick
More vaingloriousness...
Andynude
Mark Nisbet wrote in message <7jf3tp$qro$1...@news2.btconnect.com>...
>More vaingloriousness
'Kin-nell Mark!
Can't you expand a bit on your 'pearls of wisdom'? Oh don't tell
me......More vaingloriousness...
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
>
>
MARC
> vaingloriousnes
it was an impressive word , before it got boring of course. Is all your
writing to the same standard?
Marc
Carl .LHS. Williams
Vaingloriousnes epitomized, I shouldn't wonder :-)
--
,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Carl Williams, e-mail to <carl at : MAG #106893 : Yon Net |
| yon-net dot demon dot co dot uk> : : Powered by TQT |
`A journey of a thousand miles must begin with three cups of strong coffee'
Peter Narramore
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> (It's years since I bought a Sunday newspaper, so I have to assume
> they are still like that.)
Yes, pretty much. One more recent addition is that you'll find most of
the weekend papers, even the "quality" broadsheets, also carry pages of
contact and chat line ads.
This was described as "sleaze" by one poster, but I don't think it's
something peculiar to H&E (assuming that the ads in H&E are similar).
- Pete
Tim Forcer
>
>> ...
>
> I have spoken to the person who sent me the fax and what
> they are talking about when referring to 'sleaze' is an
> increase in the number of personal contact and 'phone in ads.
Whether or not I like them, I don't see why contact ads should be
excluded from H&E. After all, there are far more contact ads in the
Observer (which I buy most Sundays) than in H&E. I don't read those
ads, any more than I read the Observer's full-page ads - but both bring
in revenue for the paper and keep the price to a level I'm prepared to
pay.
For info, several years ago I heard a senior member of the Consumers'
Association talking about magazine publishing. She said that if Which
were to go on newstands, the cover price would have to treble at least
due to the standard mark-ups of wholesalers and retailers (and the
buy-back of unsold copies). The only reason ordinary mags can survive
on newstands at prices readers will pay is because their income from
advertising vastly exceeds that from the publisher's cut of the cover
price. I doubt things have changed much recently.
But someone else put it very well. Advertising only brings in revenue
if the readership suits the advertising (advertisers stop advertising if
too few target people buy the mag). If the readership of H&E is
predominately naturist, and those naturists aren't generally interested
in sex-related products/services/people, then such advertising will
disappear rapidly. But there's an obvious chicken/egg situation to
consider (and the old chestnut of whether naturists are more interested
in sex than non-naturists, or vice-versa).
> I emphasise that what I posted was not of my writing. I just
> thought it may promote useful discussion if the contents of this
> fax I received was shared with you all and in good journalistic
> tradition am protecting my sources.
OK, speculation time again.
According to a recent naturist magazine, who is it who sends faxes to at
least one senior officer of a naturist organisation, reported content of
said faxes being somewhat at variance with what many urners think of
this newsgroup?
Notice that I am careful not to name any names, and I am not for one
moment implying that I think the sender of the faxes reported in the
(un-named) magazine *IS* the same as the one who faxed Sue.
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
<ab...@housemartin.force9.co.uk> typed and sent:
>I'm sorry, Mark <snip>
So you should be.
Anyone in this ng wished MN best wishes for his new position?
Anyone at all?
Anyone focussing beyond their nose, here?
Robert Tedder
robertattedderdotudashnetdotcom
www.tedder.u-net.com
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
<Andy...@skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> typed and sent:
>Can't you expand a bit on your 'pearls of wisdom'? Oh don't tell
>me......More vaingloriousness...
Sarcasm followed by insincere humility.
Impressive stuff...
Robert Tedder
robertattedderdotudashnetdotcom
www.tedder.u-net.com
Kev
<37654d27.10655285@news>...
>On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 12:42:08 +0100, Rick Martin
><ab...@housemartin.force9.co.uk> typed and sent:
>>I'm sorry, Mark <snip>
>So you should be.
>Anyone in this ng wished MN best wishes for his new position?
>Anyone at all?
>Anyone focussing beyond their nose, here?
Robert, Mark hasn't confirmed in the ng that he has the rumoured position.
Until he does or we see something in print to confirm it, its a little
difficult to wish him well in it.
Kev
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
typed and sent:
>Robert, Mark hasn't confirmed in the ng that he has the rumoured position.
>Until he does or we see something in print to confirm it, its a little
>difficult to wish him well in it.
Blimey O'Reilly!
It doesn't need to be confirmed for best wishes to be expressed.
<Loud laughter>But it does mean you ain't up to date with events - you
haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
Robert Tedder
robertattedderdotudashnetdotcom
www.tedder.u-net.com
Rick Martin
>
> On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 12:42:08 +0100, Rick Martin
> <ab...@housemartin.force9.co.uk> typed and sent:
> >I'm sorry, Mark <snip>
> So you should be.
I'm only sorry for not having had anything positive to say about the
man. I'm not apologising to him for what I said. I don't subscribe to
any magazine which he puts out, only to this newsgroup. On the basis of
what I see here, I see no reason to go and part with cash to buy his
magazine.
> Anyone in this ng wished MN best wishes for his new position?
Not me. If he wants to participate in this newsgroup and influence my
opinion of him more positively, he is quite able to do so. However, he
hasn't.
MARC
> - you
> haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
Nope ! Not a member of the inner sanctum or the press, possibly you are
and are laughing at us morals? I'm sorry no to be in awe of you as
others seem to, be but I haven't a clue who you are or why you are meant
to be so important.
Marc
Ian
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>I'm only sorry for not having had anything positive to say about the
>man. I'm not apologising to him for what I said. I don't subscribe to
>any magazine which he puts out, only to this newsgroup. On the basis of
>what I see here, I see no reason to go and part with cash to buy his
>magazine.
That says more about you than Nisbet, and it isn't flattering.
>
>> Anyone in this ng wished MN best wishes for his new position?
>
>Not me. If he wants to participate in this newsgroup and influence my
>opinion of him more positively, he is quite able to do so. However, he
>hasn't.
I don't suppose he's fretting unduly just because he's forfeited the
adulation of a half-wit.
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Is Rick responsible for his?
Ian
enjoying W2K) <rob...@spamless.tedder.u-net.com> writes
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:08:54 +0100, "Andynude"
><Andy...@skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> typed and sent:
>
>>Can't you expand a bit on your 'pearls of wisdom'? Oh don't tell
>>me......More vaingloriousness...
>Sarcasm followed by insincere humility.
>Impressive stuff...
But out Tedder, awlrite! Yiew 'aft ter post a bit more van yiew bin
doin' before you can challenge innerleckshals like wot run vis groop.
Cue: the half-wits' chorus.
Ian
<ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> writes
>Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
>
>> - you
>> haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
>
>Nope ! Not a member of the inner sanctum or the press, possibly you are
>and are laughing at us morals? I'm sorry no to be in awe of you as
>others seem to, be but I haven't a clue who you are or why you are meant
>to be so important.
Down Marc, down! It's not dinner time; it's just the doorbell.
That bugger Pavlov has a lot to answer for.
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Is Marc responsible for his?
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
and sent:
>But out Tedder, awlrite! Yiew 'aft ter post a bit more van yiew bin
>doin' before you can challenge innerleckshals like wot run vis groop.
>
>Cue: the half-wits' chorus.
Half is less than zero. I may, therefore, have to take issue with
you...
Robert Tedder
robertattedderdotudashnetdotcom
www.tedder.u-net.com
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)
(Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K)) typed and sent:
>Half is less than zero. I may, therefore, have to take issue with
>you...
I meant "more than zero"...
Robert Tedder
robertattedderdotudashnetdotcom
www.tedder.u-net.com
Rick Martin
Probably not, but he's the one with a product to sell, and this is an
ideal forum for gaining some nearly-free publicity for it. The image he
portrays here reflects on his product. He could choose to contribute
more frequently and more positively, but he doesn't. If he did so, I
would be open to the suggestion that his product is one which might
interest me.
As things are, however, we see few posts from him, and those few contain
even fewer different words, one quite possibly having been thrown at him
recently, which is why he knows it :) This gives me the impression that
Mark is full of his own importance and this leads me to suspect (based
on no fact, I freely admit) that his publication will amount to mere
vaingloriousness on his part.
Ian
enjoying W2K) <rob...@spamless.tedder.u-net.com> writes
>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:29:57 +0100, Ian<nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> typed
>and sent:
>
>>But out Tedder, awlrite! Yiew 'aft ter post a bit more van yiew bin
>>doin' before you can challenge innerleckshals like wot run vis groop.
>>
>>Cue: the half-wits' chorus.
>you...
'spek you fink your ded clevah!
--
Ian
Iananddonna
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>Probably not, but he's the one with a product to sell, and this is an
>ideal forum for gaining some nearly-free publicity for it.
- Chortle!
That's right, nobody outside UK.rec.half-wits has heard of H&E, have
they?
> If he did so, I
>would be open to the suggestion that his product is one which might
>interest me.
> This gives me the impression that
>Mark is full of his own importance
Only Mark (or did you mean Marc?)? You seem to have your fair share of
self importance - are you in the CCBN, by any chance?
Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one liners)-.
Iananddonna
>and are laughing at us morals?
'morals' (chortle)
> I'm sorry no to be in awe of you as
'no to be in awe of you' (chortle)
>others seem to, be but I haven't a clue
That's all too obvious!! (guffaw, guffaw, guffaw)
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Is Marc responsible for himself?
Carl .LHS. Williams
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K) <robertattedderdotudashnetdoncom> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:29:57 +0100, Ian<nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> typed
>and sent:
>
>>But out Tedder, awlrite! Yiew 'aft ter post a bit more van yiew bin
>>doin' before you can challenge innerleckshals like wot run vis groop.
>>
>>Cue: the half-wits' chorus.
>Half is less than zero. I may, therefore, have to take issue with
You ever design any Intel MPUs, by any chance?
Carl .LHS. Williams
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K) <robertattedderdotudashnetdoncom> wrote:
><ab...@housemartin.force9.co.uk> typed and sent:
>>I'm sorry, Mark <snip>
>So you should be.
>Anyone focussing beyond their nose, here?
Certainly not! :-)
Carl .LHS. Williams
Carl .LHS. Williams
Ian <Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3765D15D...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk>, Rick
>Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>
>>I'm only sorry for not having had anything positive to say about the
>>man. I'm not apologising to him for what I said. I don't subscribe to
>>any magazine which he puts out, only to this newsgroup. On the basis of
>>what I see here, I see no reason to go and part with cash to buy his
>>magazine.
>
>That says more about you than Nisbet, and it isn't flattering.
Erm, bollocks.
>
>>
>>> Anyone in this ng wished MN best wishes for his new position?
>>
>>Not me. If he wants to participate in this newsgroup and influence my
>>opinion of him more positively, he is quite able to do so. However, he
>>hasn't.
>
>I don't suppose he's fretting unduly just because he's forfeited the
>adulation of a half-wit.
Oh dear.
Carl .LHS. Williams
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K) <robertattedderdotudashnetdoncom> wrote:
>typed and sent:
>
>>Robert, Mark hasn't confirmed in the ng that he has the rumoured position.
>>Until he does or we see something in print to confirm it, its a little
>>difficult to wish him well in it.
>Blimey O'Reilly!
>It doesn't need to be confirmed for best wishes to be expressed.
>haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
Good heavens, you mean there are matters of Grave Import which get
sidelined by the national and international press, biassed as they are
towards genocide and wars between nuclear powers? Just as well we
have Publications which are able to see beyond their noses to maintain
a balance, eh? :-) :-) :-)
T'ra folks, s'time for me to move along... have fun, stay nude, look
after your goats and all that - got Things To Do, buggrit, no posting
time :-(
TTFN
Carl
Oh, and good luck, Mark Nisbett, with yer new mag, BTW.
MARC
> Down Marc, down! It's not dinner time; it's just the doorbell.
>
> That bugger Pavlov has a lot to answer for.
LOL! Ok, ok, Iwill put me 'ands up for that one , its a fair cop guv.
Marc
Mike Berridge
E.
The press release has certainly caused some publicity in this area, as Goole
is 'local'. There have been press and TV articles, saying H&E in Goole is
new (shows how far behind the times the press can be).
For my own part, I will leave comment on Mark as Editor till I see the end
result, however it will be interesting to see how he survives with
deadlines, Starkers being published at uncertain intervals.
I would actually like to see H&E succeed.
Mike
8-)#
these are my own personal opinions.
ian bibby
Mike Berridge <mi...@miju.softnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7kbrrn$ni9$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net...
> For my own part, I will leave comment on Mark as Editor till I see the end
> result, however it will be interesting to see how he survives with
> deadlines, Starkers being published at uncertain intervals.
>
> I would actually like to see H&E succeed.
>
> Mike
> 8-)#
> these are my own personal opinions.
>
birthday and liked it from the start. It did have the advantage then of
being able to show family groups and children without the thought police
being involved, and so it did IMO come across more as a naturist mag than
soft porn. If the only photos it can show are adults, and not many readers
are prepared to be shown, then just to fill the pages they will pay models
and who wants to see a model who looks like Hilda Ogden ? ( No offence meant
to Jean Alexander.)
If anyone is interested I'm going to sell my H&E collection soon because a:
I need the money to support my kids and b: There's over 200 of them and I've
not got the room.
Just as a sideline, whatever happened to Susan Mayfield ? I have issue 1 of
a mag she produced late '87 or early '88, and I don't think I've heard of
her since.
Cheers, Ian.
ian bibby
Jon <j...@jonric.force-remove-9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fiva3.1123$BS6.595@wards...
> >I need the money to support my kids and b: There's over 200 of them and
> I've
> >not got the room.
>
>
Want to buy some of the kids as well, then?
THIS IS A JOKE IF THEIR SOCIAL WORKER IS READING THIS !!!
Tim Forcer
>
> Rick Martin typed and sent:
>>
>> I'm sorry, Mark <snip>
>
> So you should be.
Yup.
Tim Forcer
>
> Robert Tedder wrote:
>>
>> - you
>> haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
>
> ...
> I'm sorry no to be in awe of you as
Robert has caused some disquiet to some senior names in CCBN by being
unimpressed by hot air - in itself this may not be a significant
achievement, but the matter was publicised by CCBN, shooting itself in
the foot thereby (IMO) (or was it that Starkers reported the matter,
including some wonderfully pompous CCBN officialese? I forget the
details). For quite some time he has maitained a Website with (IMO)
useful information, some thought-provoking views and helpful links.
I am not in awe of Robert (although I admire some of the ways he has
promoted naturism, including simply being naturist and disarming casual
prejudice in people he has encountered while nude).
Is he important? Dunno. (In the sense: "Is Robert Tedder important
within naturism?") But I'd be very sorry if his clearly-expressed views
weren't around.
On the other hand, I'm not so impressed by Robert's recent recurrent
jingle of "what have/will you/they/he/she done/do to promote
naturism?". It's a reasonable question, but (IMO) not particularly
useful as a constant refrain. Some constructive suggestions of ways
people could/should promote naturism would be more useful.
msouthg
<ca...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <37656097.15631984@news>,
>Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K) <robertattedderdotudashnetdoncom
>> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:51:06 +0100, "Kev" <kev...@net.ntl.com.nospam>
>>typed and sent:
>>
>>>Robert, Mark hasn't confirmed in the ng that he has the rumoured position.
>>>Until he does or we see something in print to confirm it, its a little
>>>difficult to wish him well in it.
>>Blimey O'Reilly!
>>It doesn't need to be confirmed for best wishes to be expressed.
>>haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
>
>sidelined by the national and international press, biassed as they are
>towards genocide and wars between nuclear powers? Just as well we
>have Publications which are able to see beyond their noses to maintain
>a balance, eh? :-) :-) :-)
>
at least this newsgroup, as a significant means of communication.
Does anyone else have my dilemma? As a naturist on u.r.n., should I or
should I not wear my anorak?
>T'ra folks, s'time for me to move along... have fun, stay nude, look
>after your goats and all that - got Things To Do, buggrit, no posting
>time :-(
>
I sincerely hope this will be only temporary, Carl. At least stay in
touch on the two wheeled channel, OK?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
>I don't suppose he's fretting unduly just because he's forfeited the
>adulation of a half-wit.
I guess you don't live too near to Bedford or Whilttlesea?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
>In article <3766C47A...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk>, Rick
>Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>
>>Probably not, but he's the one with a product to sell, and this is an
>>ideal forum for gaining some nearly-free publicity for it.
>
> - Chortle!
>
>That's right, nobody outside UK.rec.half-wits has heard of H&E, have
>they?
>
driftwood. Is there a lot of sunstroke in Berwick-on-Tweed?
Now seems (to me) to be an appropriate time to give a report on the
latest leg of Mick's 1999 tour.
"Life is what happens to you, when you are busy planning something
else." John Lennon?
13/06/1999 Doncaster Dome swim. Met David and Sue Martin. Heard that
they are not too enamoured with CCBN. Had a *great* swim, specially
going outside in the cool evening air, watching the vapour rise from the
water's surface. Chatted in the saunas (sic). Walked along the balcony,
air/moon bathing; bit of a first for me at a swim. Lost an ear stud in
the pool. (Tut, tut! Must be one of those *pierced* people.) Informed a
life guard of the potential hazard.
14/06/1999 Encouraged/persuaded/dragged a fellow urn'er to the/a
Manchester swim. This person had previously been exclusively a beach and
domestic naturist. Nice bunch, nice facilities, albeit not so modern as,
say, Doncaster Dome. They *were* keen to see my CCBN card.
16/06/1999 Damn nearly dropped in on Callow, but got lost, leaving
Manchester, on the motorway system and had to get to the printers in
Bicester before close of business.
Is there a point to this? Well, ........ Seems to me that there's a lot
of "factionalism" and I have more than enough of that in other areas of
my life, so I'm really not interested. However, I *do* feel moved to
post when I see insults flying around.
Hey, folks! The sun is shining in my garden. Come over, get your kit off
and chill out. Don't forget, we're all equally naked under our clothes.
Hey, Voodoolady, be an angel and bring us some more beers.
>> If he did so, I
>>would be open to the suggestion that his product is one which might
>>interest me.
>
>> This gives me the impression that
>>Mark is full of his own importance
>
>Only Mark (or did you mean Marc?)? You seem to have your fair share of
>self importance - are you in the CCBN, by any chance?
>
>Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one liners)-.
OK. Your task for today is to cut and paste my contribution above into a
series of one liners. Should keep you busy for a while. Does Mummy let
you play with scissors? Done anything to promote naturism lately?
Sorry, go to go now. My new Capt. Beefheart 5 CD set just dropped
through the letter box. Wake me up when this nonsense is over.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Jon
Callow
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>16/06/1999 Damn nearly dropped in on Callow, but got lost, leaving
>Manchester, on the motorway system and had to get to the printers in
>Bicester before close of business.
Try harder next time Mick :-) Open invite to anyone who finds
themselves in the Shropshire area but email first to be sure we are
there 'cos it's way out in the sticks.
--
Terry
http://home.clara.net/callowhill/
http://home.clara.net/callowhill/nat.htm
Jon
Hmmm. I think I'll pass!
>THIS IS A JOKE IF THEIR SOCIAL WORKER IS READING THIS !!!
And I don't really think I want to buy the social worker either!
Kev
<7kbrrn$ni9$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>...
>For all those who have not heard, etc. Mark Nisbet IS the new Editor of H &
>E.
For the record so would I, ...
and now you've confirmed the rumour (and its a pity that the original poster
didn't just put out a note saying.. does everyone know that Marks the new
editor.. it would have saved a lot of bandwidth)...
I *do* wish Mark the best in the new job.
I suspect that it wont be easy for him, given the problem of deadlines on
national public magazines, and also the problem of trying not to alienate
the current readership whilst trying to get something more concrete on
naturism into a publication that has been relatively lightweight. there is
also the question of what to do about some of the advertising.
So, indeed Mark will have his hands full, and whilst hes getting to grips
with it, Sunlovers seems to be going from strength to strength.
Long term I sincerely doubt whether there is enough marketplace to support
both magazines.
Kev
PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then? If shes left the
magazine, has a new job arrived on the horizon ?
Ian
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes in his usual, vacuous style:
>Seems to me that there's a lot
>of "factionalism" and I have more than enough of that in other areas of
>my life, so I'm really not interested. However, I *do* feel moved to
>post when I see insults flying around.
A little too close to home perhaps, Mick?
>>Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one liners)-.
>
>OK. Your task for today is to cut and paste my contribution above into a
>series of one liners. Should keep you busy for a while.
Not so very difficult, Mick, since you go on to say:
>Does Mummy let
>you play with scissors?
I think that most intelligent people would agree that this qualifies for
the appellation: 'witless one-liner'.
So (as far as I am concerned): QED (you _seriously_ overestimate your
abilities Mick)!
Therefore, I'll say again: 'Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one
liners).'
> Done anything to promote naturism lately?
Haven't you grasped yet that I am not a 'naturist' (whatever one of
those is)? I never have been and never will be - and nor are the
overwhelming majority of the highly implausible 500,000, or so, that the
laughable CCBN claims to speak for - nor am I an evangelist for some
supposed 'life-style'. I'm not promoting gardening or international
cuisine either, but I enjoy both just as much as not having any clothes
on.
If others wish to do as I do that's a matter for them, but I don't see
that it's my place to 'convert' them - I don't believe in the concept of
religion and I can't see the point of labelling myself for the
convenience of others either. Your question was pointless.
>Sorry, go to go now. My new Capt. Beefheart 5 CD set just dropped
>through the letter box. Wake me up when this nonsense is over.
|
Sleep on Mick - your waking hours are obviously wasted.
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Nor Mick his, apparently.
Ian
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes (pointlessly)
>I guess you don't live too near to Bedford or Whilttlesea?
Since, in another equally pointless contribution, he has just told the
world and his wife where I live.
Why does he bother?
JLE
Robert Tedder (well past W98, now enjoying W2K) wrote in message
<37656097.15631984@news>...
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:51:06 +0100, "Kev" <kev...@net.ntl.com.nospam>
>typed and sent:
>
>>Robert, Mark hasn't confirmed in the ng that he has the rumoured
position.
>>Until he does or we see something in print to confirm it, its a little
>>difficult to wish him well in it.
>Blimey O'Reilly!
>It doesn't need to be confirmed for best wishes to be expressed.
><Loud laughter>But it does mean you ain't up to date with events - you
>haven't seen the Press Release?</Loud laughter>
>
find it a bit inbarasing
to send my best wishes before it is confermed by him. It might end up
looking like you
are sending best wishes for /not/ geting the job or something !
Mike Berridge
Ian. go to your local newsagent, ask for a copy of Sunlovers..her new
magazine, and now available through all good newsagents. This is now up to
issue 10.
Mike
8-)#
Terry Blunt
ian bibby wrote in message <7kdvvq$o15$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Jon <j...@jonric.force-remove-9.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fiva3.1123$BS6.595@wards...
>> >I need the money to support my kids and b: There's over 200 of them and
>> I've
>> >not got the room.
>>
>> 200 kids? Blimey!
>>
>
>Want to buy some of the kids as well, then?
>
Too late! Too late!
You should know that social works have a sense of humor extraction as part
of their training.
Terry
ian bibby
> >Want to buy some of the kids as well, then?
> >
> >THIS IS A JOKE IF THEIR SOCIAL WORKER IS READING THIS !!!
>
>
> Too late! Too late!
>
> You should know that social works have a sense of humor extraction as part
> of their training.
>
> Terry
>
Having had dealings with social workers for the last two years for reasons
relating to my partners family, I'm very firmly convinced that God put
Social Workers on this Earth so that Cockroaches had something to look down
on.
No offence is meant to conscientious and intelligent Social Workers, lots
and lots of offence is meant to chocolate fireguards like the ones I know
!!!!
Jilli
wrote:
What??
I'm not sure whether to suggest you take a few more paranoia pills ...
I mean we _all_ know your address now, don't we??.... or possibly
suggest you lighten up a bit.. get out in the sunshine and chill a
little?
I don't profess to understand one word of this CCBN/H&E debate... if
that is your prob.. please elucidate it for the benefit of the likes
of newbies like me? It would be appreciated. If on the other hand
you have a personal prob with the poster, why not take it to e.mail,
where it belongs?
Jilli
Jilli
(voodoolady) wrote:
>>Hey, folks! The sun is shining in my garden. Come over, get your kit off
>>and chill out. Don't forget, we're all equally naked under our clothes.
>>Hey, Voodoolady, be an angel and bring us some more beers.
>
>Yes boss, Izzz a comin' massa! :)
>
>This translates into Strine as
>
>Get you own bloody beer you lazy git. Jilli and I are too busy
>drinking wine :)
>
>
Can I sit next to you _every_ time?? <g>
love
Jilli
Jilli
wrote:
Ian.. . would you please provide a reachable e.mail address to which
responses may be sent?
Jilli
msouthg
<Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3Rj$AgAFQh...@msouthg.demon.co.uk>, msouthg
><mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes in his usual, vacuous style:
>
>>Seems to me that there's a lot
>>of "factionalism" and I have more than enough of that in other areas of
>>my life, so I'm really not interested. However, I *do* feel moved to
>>post when I see insults flying around.
>
>A little too close to home perhaps, Mick?
>
Maybe that's why I post even when I am/was not the target.
>>>Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one liners)-.
>>
>>OK. Your task for today is to cut and paste my contribution above into a
>>series of one liners. Should keep you busy for a while.
>
>Not so very difficult, Mick, since you go on to say:
>
>>Does Mummy let
>>you play with scissors?
>
>I think that most intelligent people would agree that this qualifies for
>the appellation: 'witless one-liner'.
>
Know a lot of intelligent people, do you?
I think it is stretching a point to extract *one* line from one of
several posts and describe it as a one-liner.
>So (as far as I am concerned): QED (you _seriously_ overestimate your
>abilities Mick)!
>
You're entitled to your opinion.
>Therefore, I'll say again: 'Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one
>liners).'
>
You prefer insults?
>
>> Done anything to promote naturism lately?
>
>Haven't you grasped yet that I am not a 'naturist' (whatever one of
>those is)?
Check the name of this newsgroup.
> I never have been and never will be - and nor are the
>overwhelming majority of the highly implausible 500,000, or so, that the
>laughable CCBN claims to speak for
I carry no particular torch for CCBN.
> - nor am I an evangelist for some
>supposed 'life-style'.
Freedom would be nice, though. Don't you agree? I'm sure many people in
Eastern Europe would.
> I'm not promoting gardening or international
>cuisine either, but I enjoy both just as much as not having any clothes
>on.
>
The difference being that the latter is proscribed in some circumstances
where I believe it should not be.
>If others wish to do as I do that's a matter for them, but I don't see
>that it's my place to 'convert' them
I prefer the terms 'encourage' or 'educate', depending to whom I am
speaking.
> - I don't believe in the concept of
>religion and I can't see the point of labelling myself for the
>convenience of others either. Your question was pointless.
>
So ignore it.
>
>
>>Sorry, go to go now. My new Capt. Beefheart 5 CD set just dropped
>>through the letter box. Wake me up when this nonsense is over.
> |
>Sleep on Mick - your waking hours are obviously wasted.
I'd agree that *some* of them are.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <KAzgEYAE...@msouthg.demon.co.uk>, msouthg
><mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes (pointlessly)
>
>>I guess you don't live too near to Bedford or Whilttlesea?
>
>Since, in another equally pointless contribution, he has just told the
>world and his wife where I live.
>
>Why does he bother?
Usenet.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Rick Martin
>
> Jon <j...@jonric.force-remove-9.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fiva3.1123$BS6.595@wards...
> > >I need the money to support my kids and b: There's over 200 of them and
> > I've
> > >not got the room.
> >
> > 200 kids? Blimey!
> >
>
>
> THIS IS A JOKE IF THEIR SOCIAL WORKER IS READING THIS !!!
That last line creased me up more than any of what went before it. Nice
one, but could you please start adding "Coffee Splutter Warnings" before
doing it again? :)
Rick
--
Please change 'abuse' to my first name if replying via email
Rick Martin
>
> In article <7k6u9o$r...@yon-net.demon.co.uk>, Carl .LHS. Williams
> <ca...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >sidelined by the national and international press, biassed as they are
> >towards genocide and wars between nuclear powers? Just as well we
> >have Publications which are able to see beyond their noses to maintain
> >a balance, eh? :-) :-) :-)
> >
> I guess this means it's not only Rex Watson who doesn't see the net, or
> at least this newsgroup, as a significant means of communication.
I wonder where the national media would look for a spokesperson on the
subject of, lets' say just for the sake of hypothetical argument,
driftwood? ;)
Rick Martin
Check his message headers, Jilli. And I'll respect Ian's anti-spam
wishes by breaking up slightly
Nude at solitude dot demon dot co dot uk
Jilli
<ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Check his message headers, Jilli. And I'll respect Ian's anti-spam
>wishes by breaking up slightly
> Nude at solitude dot demon dot co dot uk
Thanks, Rick.
I'll know where to look next time :-)
love
Jilli
nude in the warm rain.. strange weather here today!
msouthg
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>> I guess this means it's not only Rex Watson who doesn't see the net, or
>> at least this newsgroup, as a significant means of communication.
>
>I wonder where the national media would look for a spokesperson on the
>subject of, lets' say just for the sake of hypothetical argument,
>driftwood? ;)
> Rick
Beats me! (Geddit?)
Nearly a one-liner.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>Jilli wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:12:34 +0100, Ian <Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ian.. . would you please provide a reachable e.mail address to which
>> responses may be sent?
>
>wishes by breaking up slightly
> Nude at solitude dot demon dot co dot uk
>
>
people who use Microsoft Outlook, which doesn't show "irrelevant" stuff
like Reply-To addresses when you ask it to "Display/View(?) Headers".
I guess, if in doubt, she could hit the reply button and see what it
prompts with.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
>
>Jilli
> nude in the warm rain.. strange weather here today!
Been doing the rounds of your estate?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Steve Doerr
<7kek2p$vvo$1...@newsreader2.core.theplanet.net>...
Just bought issue 11 (dated May 1999) from the club.
Steve
Rick Martin
>
> In article <376B64CC...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk>, Rick
> Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
> >Jilli wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:12:34 +0100, Ian <Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ian.. . would you please provide a reachable e.mail address to which
> >> responses may be sent?
> >
> >Check his message headers, Jilli. And I'll respect Ian's anti-spam
> >wishes by breaking up slightly
> > Nude at solitude dot demon dot co dot uk
> >
> >
> From what I can see of Jilli's headers, she's one of those unfortunate
> people who use Microsoft Outlook, which doesn't show "irrelevant" stuff
> like Reply-To addresses when you ask it to "Display/View(?) Headers".
My apologies to Jilli in that case. Although the most messages from her
say she's now using FreeAgent, I wouldn't know the limitations of any
reader other than the one I currently use. And I'm still grappling with
some of the idiosyncracies of this one! [1]
Rick
[1] e.g. Adding Cross-posts, or setting Follow-Up groups - I get all
sorts of duplicated groups *sometimes*, automatically added groups
*sometimes* :(
Keith Dunnett
msouthg <mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
> From what I can see of Jilli's headers, she's one of those unfortunate
> people who use Microsoft Outlook, which doesn't show "irrelevant" stuff
> like Reply-To addresses when you ask it to "Display/View(?) Headers".
As am I. Right click the message and select Properties.
Keith
Jilli
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>From what I can see of Jilli's headers, she's one of those unfortunate
>people who use Microsoft Outlook, which doesn't show "irrelevant" stuff
>like Reply-To addresses when you ask it to "Display/View(?) Headers".
>
>I guess, if in doubt, she could hit the reply button and see what it
>prompts with.
I wish you'd stop extracting the urine out of my software :-)
This one was down to operator error... the *from* header and *reply
to* field both showed the same anti-spammed address. I simply failed
to notice the *sender* line in the middle of the headers which showed
the correct one. Last week's sunshine bleached me even more blonde
than usual :-)
I couldn't be bothered writing anyway <g>
love
Jilli
Ian
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
> If on the other hand
>you have a personal prob with the poster, why not take it to e.mail,
>where it belongs?
Yawn!
Next.
Ian
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>I think it is stretching a point to extract *one* line from one of
>several posts and describe it as a one-liner.
Quote:
'OK. Your task for today is to cut and paste my contribution
above into a series of one liners. Should keep you busy for a
while.'
To which I replied:
'Not so very difficult, Mick, since you go on to say:
"Does Mummy let you play with scissors?"'
What is it that you find a little unreasonable Mick; that I only gave
one example, rather than a 'series'; that that example was drawn from
'below' rather than 'above' your pathetic challenge?
Therefore, I'll say again:
>>Therefore, I'll say again: 'Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one
>>liners).'
(The rest of Mick's fatuous drivel snipped to save him further
embarrassment)
Thread ended as far as I'm concerned.
Roma
I measure that not only do you not understand one word of the CCBN / H&E
discussion, you do not understand one word !
Is it not usual for a newbie to lurk a while to understand what is going on,
BEFORE joining in. For you information Jilli, this is a Naturist Newsgroup.
Now, Naturism is . . . . [end of sarcasm for now :-)) ]
Clive
--
Please reply via the "News Group", share the joy and keep the threats
public.
--
It's not funny, if you don't have a sense of humour.
--
Jilli <ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> wrote in message
news:376af97d...@news.freeuk.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:13:21 +0100, Ian <Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <KAzgEYAE...@msouthg.demon.co.uk>, msouthg
> ><mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes (pointlessly)
> >
> >>I guess you don't live too near to Bedford or Whilttlesea?
> >
> >Since, in another equally pointless contribution, he has just told the
> >world and his wife where I live.
> >
> >Why does he bother?
> >--
> >Ian
> >
> >The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Nor Mick his, apparently.
>
>
> What??
>
> I'm not sure whether to suggest you take a few more paranoia pills ...
> I mean we _all_ know your address now, don't we??.... or possibly
> suggest you lighten up a bit.. get out in the sunshine and chill a
> little?
>
> I don't profess to understand one word of this CCBN/H&E debate... if
> that is your prob.. please elucidate it for the benefit of the likes
> of newbies like me? It would be appreciated. If on the other hand
> you have a personal prob with the poster, why not take it to e.mail,
> where it belongs?
>
> Jilli
msouthg
Martin <ab...@housemartin.free-online.co.uk> writes
>msouthg wrote:
[snip]
>> >
>> From what I can see of Jilli's headers, she's one of those unfortunate
>> people who use Microsoft Outlook, which doesn't show "irrelevant" stuff
>> like Reply-To addresses when you ask it to "Display/View(?) Headers".
>
>say she's now using FreeAgent, I wouldn't know the limitations of any
>reader other than the one I currently use. And I'm still grappling with
>some of the idiosyncracies of this one! [1]
>
> Rick
>
>[1] e.g. Adding Cross-posts, or setting Follow-Up groups - I get all
>sorts of duplicated groups *sometimes*, automatically added groups
>*sometimes* :(
>
You're probably right about Jilli and FreeAgent. She told me something
about FreeAgent being crippleware, whereby she can't originate an email
with it and that someone had set up MS Outlook for her.
Maybe she'll win the lottery and buy a full version of something.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Jilli
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Maybe she'll win the lottery and buy a full version of something.
Not much chance of that...I won't buy lottery tickets either.<g>
love
Jilli
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
> PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then?
Currently editing a local paper, IIRC.
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
> Just as a sideline, whatever happened to Susan Mayfield ?
> I have issue 1 of a mag she produced late '87 or early '88,
That would be "Naturist World" (or similar), IIRC. Nice mag.
> and I don't think I've heard of her since.
Currently editing Sunlovers! (the '!' is part of the title, not my
comment). See
<http://www.gravis.demon.co.uk/naturist/pages/bomag/sl-new.htm> for a
bit more info.
Terry Blunt
<ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> writes
Ha! So you're another one who wins a pound every week :-)
--
Terry Blunt <te...@langri.demon.co.uk>
I have a name, and a skin. I do not need a label or a pigeon-hole
Andynude
Kris wrote in message <37718007...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Jilli <ji...@gmt.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Not much chance of that...I won't buy lottery tickets either.<g>
>
Either that or a wise investor 5 quid on a wednesday, another fiver for
Saturday is 520 a year. 10 years would be 5,200. Or chuck it into a few
blue chips and it could easily be worth 10 grand.
I dont buy them either (exept when I'm feeling *really lucky*) I'd prefer
the 10g.
--
Andynude
www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
msouthg
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes
>Kev wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then?
>
>Currently editing a local paper, IIRC.
>
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
msouthg
<Nu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>What is it that you find a little unreasonable Mick; that I only gave
>one example, rather than a 'series'; that that example was drawn from
>'below' rather than 'above' your pathetic challenge?
>
of people, but can't take them directed back at you.
"If you can't stand the heat,....".
BTW, anyone read Tone's autobiography?
>Therefore, I'll say again:
>
>>>Therefore, I'll say again: 'Cue: the half-wits' chorus ('pithy' one
>>>liners).'
>
>(The rest of Mick's fatuous drivel snipped to save him further
>embarrassment)
>
Water off a duck's back, mate.
I've been insulted by smarter people than you.
>Thread ended as far as I'm concerned.
Great. So you won't be responding to this then. Bye.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer writes
>>
>> Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then?
>>
>> Currently editing a local paper, IIRC.
>>
> I thought that was Diana?
Doh! Absolutely right.
So, what's happened to Helen?
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
>
> BTW, anyone read Tone's autobiography?
>
You what? Where?
(Or should I have read this in the context of proclaimed subject?)
msouthg
<x...@virgin.net> writes
>Once again we witness Jilli throwing her teddy into the corner.
>
>I measure that not only do you not understand one word of the CCBN / H&E
>discussion, you do not understand one word !
>
I first came across her posting elsewhere, somewhere where she is a
relative "expert" and I a complete neophyte. She has guided me on my
first steps in an alien world.
>Is it not usual for a newbie to lurk a while to understand what is going on,
>BEFORE joining in. For you information Jilli, this is a Naturist Newsgroup.
>Now, Naturism is . . . . [end of sarcasm for now :-)) ]
>
She has lurked and is only a (relative) newbie to this newsgroup.
I think she makes an enormous contribution, along with Voodoolady, to
this newsgroup as a woman, who, it seems, are still a minority in terms
of posting.
/asbestos suit on/
Not only that, but I think she does have a sense of humour, not
necessarily the same as yours.
>Clive
>
>--
>Please reply via the "News Group", share the joy and keep the threats
>public.
>--
>It's not funny, if you don't have a sense of humour.
I wonder if a crowbar would be an aesthetic contribution to a still life
composed mainly of driftwood?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Tim Forcer
>
> msouthg wrote:
> >
> > Tim Forcer writes
> >>
> >> Kev wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>> PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then?
> >>
> >> Currently editing a local paper, IIRC.
> >>
> > I thought that was Diana?
>
> Doh! Absolutely right.
>
> So, what's happened to Helen?
After an email or two, I'm told:
"Helen has decided to take a break from the hectic world of naturist
publishing. She will be making contributions to future issues of H&E."
There are suggestions of travel, TV and meeting people. But I think not
as a Miss World contestant.
msouthg
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes
>msouthg wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> BTW, anyone read Tone's autobiography?
>>
>> ...
>
>You what? Where?
>
>(Or should I have read this in the context of proclaimed subject?)
>
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
Ian
<mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes, in his characteristically half-
witted manner:
>No. What I find unreasonable is that you initiate insults to a variety
>of people, but can't take them directed back at you.
>"If you can't stand the heat,....".
>Great. So you won't be responding to this then. Bye.
I just cannot resist one final observation:
I've yet to see anything original, witty or intelligent from you - in
fact I consider that the stupidity of your contributions is matched only
by their frequency: 'proof positive' that 'empty vessels make the most
sound' (if any were needed). Unbelievably you appear not to realise
that your vacuous responses don't actually follow from anything so far
posted by me in this thread. Having looked carefully, I cannot find
even a hint of a crushing retort from you - perhaps you could point me
to it?
Put more simply Mick, where is the 'heat' to which you refer? Your
'wit' (such as it is) is little more than tepid, and rather stale.
Last word to you Mick?
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Who _is_ responsible for Mick?
Malcolm B
msouthg <mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <376E40...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk>, Tim Forcer
> <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes
> >Kev wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> PS Forgive me for asking.. whats happened to Helen then?
> >
> >Currently editing a local paper, IIRC.
> >
> I thought that was Diana?
From my who's who file.
Diana Roseman is nom de plume of Jane Hendy-Smith, onetime editor of
H&E, now editor of Billericay Life Magazine. Other editor of H&E was
Helen Ludbrook.
--
Malcolm, Webmaster for NUFF venues.
NUFF is the FAQ for this newsgroup. Please read before posting.
It is the comprehensive www source of UK naturist information.
<http://w3.to/nuff/>
msouthg
<Nu...@no.ccbn.thank.you> writes
>In article <3GlPllAZ...@msouthg.demon.co.uk>, msouthg
><mso...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes, in his characteristically half-
>witted manner:
>
>>No. What I find unreasonable is that you initiate insults to a variety
>>of people, but can't take them directed back at you.
>>"If you can't stand the heat,....".
>
>>Great. So you won't be responding to this then. Bye.
>
>I just cannot resist one final observation:
>
>I've yet to see anything original, witty or intelligent from you - in
>fact I consider that the stupidity of your contributions is matched only
>by their frequency: 'proof positive' that 'empty vessels make the most
>sound' (if any were needed). Unbelievably you appear not to realise
>that your vacuous responses don't actually follow from anything so far
>posted by me in this thread.
You asked me what I found unreasonable.
I told you.
Are you blind? I note that you snipped your request. Tactics?
> Having looked carefully, I cannot find
>even a hint of a crushing retort from you - perhaps you could point me
>to it?
>
I don't try to "do" crushing retorts, preferring merely to point out
errors in a line of thought and an occasional double entendre..
>Put more simply Mick, where is the 'heat' to which you refer?
In your head and in what you say, i.e. hot air.
> Your
>'wit' (such as it is) is little more than tepid, and rather stale.
>
>Last word to you Mick?
Scrofulous.
P.S. You didn't answer my question about what it is you are hiding.
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575
MARC
> I just cannot resist one final observation:
>
Might have guessed, always one isn't there?
>
> Put more simply Mick, where is the 'heat' to which you refer? Your
> 'wit' (such as it is) is little more than tepid, and rather stale.
Hey great ! Now I'm not the only one that Ian thinks is thick, welcome
aboard Mick!
Marc
MARC
> That's not fair I wanna be thick too :) (ok go on! Someone say I
> already am) :)
Nahh! You have to be sanctionted by Ian, thats the only reason he 's
here.
Marc
Phil
magazine and am hoping that more pictures of ordinary nudists around the world
appear.
Phil B (Perth Scrubnud - Australia)
Mike Berridge wrote:
> For all those who have not heard, etc. Mark Nisbet IS the new Editor of H &
> E.
>
> The press release has certainly caused some publicity in this area, as Goole
> is 'local'. There have been press and TV articles, saying H&E in Goole is
> new (shows how far behind the times the press can be).
>
> For my own part, I will leave comment on Mark as Editor till I see the end
> result, however it will be interesting to see how he survives with
> deadlines, Starkers being published at uncertain intervals.
>
> I would actually like to see H&E succeed.
>
> Mike
> 8-)#
> these are my own personal opinions.
Ian
sw.bigpond.net.au> writes - though I wouldn't have believed it if I
hadn't seen it with my own eyes -
>That's not fair I wanna be thick too :) (ok go on! Someone say I
>already am) :)
Good God; I don't believe it, I _don't_ believe it - she really is
thick!
Who's next, I wonder. Will it be ... ?
Iananddonna
<ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> barks (and barks and barks and barks):
>Hey great ! Now I'm not the only one that Ian thinks is thick, welcome
>aboard Mick!
Down Marc, down! Oh, all right, all right; here's a choccy drop, but
you know you really should wait for your din dins. Now stop dribbling
everywhere. Good boy, good boy!
It's my fault for ringing the bell I suppose - but what the devil, it
passes the time.
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Pavlov is responsible for Marc's
Ian
<ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> dribbles, farts and burbles (as is his
practice):
>Nahh! You have to be sanctionted by Ian, thats the only reason he 's
>here.
I think that in your case, Marc, 'sectioned' would be more appropriate.
--
Ian
The CCBN is not responsible for _my_ opinions! Is there anyone prepared to
admit responsibility for Marc?
Rick Martin
>
> In article <qKF1nKAD...@solitude.demon.co.uk>, Ian
> <Nu...@no.ccbn.thank.you> writes
> >
>
> Scrofulous.
LOL
I would have chosen "Yawn" :)
R
--
Please change 'abuse' to my first name if replying via email
Tim Forcer
>
[Quoting Marc]
>> Hey great ! Now I'm not the only one that Ian
>> thinks is thick, welcome aboard Mick!
>
> That's not fair I wanna be thick too :) (ok go on!
> Someone say I already am) :)
As two short planks of driftwood?
PS - Voodoo, could you PLEASE try to include the name of the person
you're responding to? It's driving me nuts working out who said what to
whom about which. Also means sometimes it looks as if one person said
whatever you're posting about, when it was someone different.
msouthg
.no.imbeciles.thank.you> writes
>In article <396ef9d5.685427893@news-server>, voodoolady <voodoo@nospam.n
>sw.bigpond.net.au> writes - though I wouldn't have believed it if I
>hadn't seen it with my own eyes -
>
>>already am) :)
>
>thick!
>
>Who's next, I wonder. Will it be ... ?
It's my turn again!
See if this makes any sense. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful, but
probably not very good at it.
Your "Sender" address suggests you have a Demon account.
Your "From" address contains what looks like an invalid domain name.
This contravenes Demon's Acceptable Use Policy with all the
ramifications therein.
There's a jolly nice man (Richard Ashton?) who has set up a real domain
called "nospam". He allows (Demon?) people to use it.
It took me a few goes to get it right, but the gist is that you tell
Turnpike to format your From address as yourd...@nospam.demon.co.uk,
but you MUST have a valid Reply-To (or Sender?) address.
HTH.
How's the weather?
--
Driftwood
ICQ 39906575