Hot off the Press : Simon Mason Letter - Porky Chapman

On 21 Sep 2011 19:22:57 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Isn't this somewhat akin to the thread you started in UKLM
"Hypothetical libel" likening Halfrauds to chocfords?

In retrospect how could anyone possibly misinterpret Judith's words:

"[...] I have just had a scan at your posting history

Did you know that you have abused the BP system and stolen their
time by posting more than 900 messages via their system whilst
you were at "work".

I am just composing the letter now.

It's a pity that you won't see this heads-up and the first you
will know about it will be the call from HR next week."


https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b30c98f0c4f84680?hl=en&dmode=source

as being an admission to poring over Simon's posting history and
writing letters to his employer? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't
it? Obviously nobody could possibly interpret the perfectly innocent
statement, constructive and impersonal statement above as being an
admission that Judith was the malicious weasel who wrote to BP in
order to pursue a pointless personal grudge.

What a fool I've been to allow myself to be deceived into believing
that "I am just composing the letter now" is anything other than an
outright denial of responsibility for this cowardly, spiteful and
childish act.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On 22 Sep 2011 08:42:20 GMT, "Paul - xxx" wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
with.

When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
sigs, let alone actual content ..

While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.

I dislike sitting on the fence so I have to say, I'm on your side, Guy,
not Judiths

Ahhhh - how touching.

You've found a little friend Porky.

ffs - "I am on your side" : says one sad ******* to another

Don't forget to ask him what makes him think I sent a letter to someone as he
has clearly claimed.

Or did you just make it up?

You little Porky you !!!!!

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 22 Sep 2011 08:42:20 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
with.

When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
sigs, let alone actual content ..

While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.

A bit, yes, for the same reason that a man will continue to swat
occasionally at the mosquito which bites him. I am up front about
this, and I acknowledge my own fault.

[1] I've given up on Doug, he's a retarded ****wit and in my view
irredeemable.

I think he's a crank, but mostly harmless. He does not seem (form what
little slips through in quoted text) to want to personalise things. I
suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd in one
way or another, my test is: would they be welcome in the shed? Doug,
probably not, as Mike Corley.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On 21/09/2011 19:21, Judith wrote:


Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post in
uk.net.news.moderation

Is anyone bothered?


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 22/09/2011 14:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b30c98f0c4f84680?hl=en&dmode=source

as being an admission to poring over Simon's posting history and
writing letters to his employer? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't
it? Obviously nobody could possibly interpret the perfectly innocent
statement, constructive and impersonal statement above as being an
admission that Judith was the malicious weasel who wrote to BP in
order to pursue a pointless personal grudge.

What a fool I've been to allow myself to be deceived into believing
that "I am just composing the letter now" is anything other than an
outright denial of responsibility for this cowardly, spiteful and
childish act.

Guy

And expressions from Judith like

".............. then the gloves are off"

Are merely references to the warm weather, not meant to intimidate at all.


--
Roger Thorpe

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:54:12 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip


I think he's a crank, but mostly harmless. He does not seem (form what
little slips through in quoted text) to want to personalise things. I
suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd in one
way or another, my test is: would they be welcome in the shed? Doug,
probably not, as Mike Corley.

Guy


ffs - you could not make it up:

" I suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd"

"my test is: would they be welcome in the shed?"

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:39:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Sep 2011 19:22:57 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Isn't this somewhat akin to the thread you started in UKLM
"Hypothetical libel" likening Halfrauds to chocfords?

In retrospect how could anyone possibly misinterpret Judith's words:

"[...] I have just had a scan at your posting history

Did you know that you have abused the BP system and stolen their
time by posting more than 900 messages via their system whilst
you were at "work".

I am just composing the letter now.

It's a pity that you won't see this heads-up and the first you
will know about it will be the call from HR next week."


https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b30c98f0c4f84680?hl=en&dmode=source

as being an admission to poring over Simon's posting history and
writing letters to his employer? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't
it? Obviously nobody could possibly interpret the perfectly innocent
statement, constructive and impersonal statement above as being an
admission that Judith was the malicious weasel who wrote to BP in
order to pursue a pointless personal grudge.

What a fool I've been to allow myself to be deceived into believing
that "I am just composing the letter now" is anything other than an
outright denial of responsibility for this cowardly, spiteful and
childish act.

Guy

Oh dear oh dear - an empty threat to the ****wit Mason (who does not even read
my posts) from a couple of months ago translates in to reality does it.

It was a wind up? Have you heard of those?

You need to get a life sunshine.

Are you now saying that someone has written to BP?

Why has Mason not claimed that?

Who was it?

Frankly I would not put it past you to write such a letter in those
circumstances just to point blame.

What did the letter say?

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 22/09/2011 23:08, Judith wrote:


Frankly I would not put it past you to write such a letter in those
circumstances just to point blame.

You're forgetting, guy didn't write pretending to be someone else, that
was you wasn't it?

--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

On 22/09/2011 09:06, Just zis ****, you know? wrote:
On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul -
wrote:

Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle and
probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of you let
go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same bone when
there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play with.

When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

Guy

Then again, 100% of your posts are utterly ****ing stupid.

Maybe you will change one day?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 22/09/2011 10:39, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:42 am, "Paul - wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul -
wrote:

Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
with.

When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
sigs, let alone actual content ..

While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.

I dislike sitting on the fence so I have to say, I'm on your side, Guy,
not Judiths, but I will try to see some good in her

Mistake no. 1.

It might be easier to do if there were a level playing-field, but
there isn't. Both JzG and Simon Mason allow themselves to be
identifiable, and so you can judge what they say partly in the light
of the fact that they are traceable. TMH ditto, surprisingly. There
are no such constraints on the postings of JMS and Nuxx Bar, as far as
I know.

Or indeed Squashme.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University