On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:15:18 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

snip
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.
The BNP is a perfectly valid party and has more sensible policies than the rest of them.
Your opinion has been noted.
What's that supposed to mean?


It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.

Are you some kind of trainspotter?

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:15:18 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

snip
snip
Your opinion has been noted.
What's that supposed to mean?


It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.

Are you some kind of trainspotter?

No.

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:34 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:15:18 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

snip
snip
Your opinion has been noted.
What's that supposed to mean?

It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.
Are you some kind of trainspotter?
No.

Good for you. Camel spotter?
No.

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.

That's worse.
Worse than what?

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.

Now you sound like a bot.

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.

Now you sound like me after several pints.
Nahhhh even after several pints I still know what the BNP are.

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:34 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
snip
snip
It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.
Are you some kind of trainspotter?
No.

Good for you. Camel spotter?
No.

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.

That's worse.
Worse than what?

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.

Now you sound like a bot.

Botness is in the eye of the beholder

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.

Now you sound like me after several pints.
Nahhhh even after several pints I still know what the BNP are.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:34:42 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:34 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
snip
snip
It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.
Are you some kind of trainspotter?
No.
Good for you. Camel spotter?
No.

How many guesses do I get?

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.
That's worse.
Worse than what?

Than what was said before: "a list of opinions"
Why do you consider a jumble to be worse than a list? A list must by

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.
Now you sound like a bot.
Botness is in the eye of the beholder

It's a subjective thing.

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.
Now you sound like me after several pints.
Nahhhh even after several pints I still know what the BNP are.

List their policies then.

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:34:42 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:34 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
snip
No.
Good for you. Camel spotter?
No.

How many guesses do I get?

As many as you want, if I can be bothered I may answer some, or none.

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.
That's worse.
Worse than what?

Than what was said before: "a list of opinions"
Why do you consider a jumble to be worse than a list? A list must by
definition require an order, that choice of order may then influence the
perception of the opinion or idea, pre-judging the issue. That is in
management speak a "trap", traps are not good things when it comes to
ideas or opinions

- you have the memory of a goldfish.

You have the clarity of communication of an ass.

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.
Now you sound like a bot.
Botness is in the eye of the beholder

It's a subjective thing.

Yes, as I said, Botness is in the eye of the beholder, you can't get
more subjective than that.
You either are or you aren't.

That's not subjective that's objective.

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.
Now you sound like me after several pints.
Nahhhh even after several pints I still know what the BNP are.

List their policies then.


No.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:48:55 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:34:42 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:34 +0100, marc <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
snip
No.
Good for you. Camel spotter?
No.
How many guesses do I get?
As many as you want, if I can be bothered I may answer some, or none.

What's the opposite of acute?

You have a list of opinions?
More like a pile or a jumble than a list, certainly not ordered,
collated or written down.
That's worse.
Worse than what?
Than what was said before: "a list of opinions"
Why do you consider a jumble to be worse than a list? A list must by
definition require an order, that choice of order may then influence the
perception of the opinion or idea, pre-judging the issue. That is in
management speak a "trap", traps are not good things when it comes to
ideas or opinions

A list does not require an order. You could have simply written them down as you find them, with no input to the list from yourself.

- you have the memory of a goldfish.

You have the clarity of communication of an ass.

You are American.
No.

What's the point?

It's the sharp end of a needle, the end away from the eye.
Now you sound like a bot.
Botness is in the eye of the beholder
It's a subjective thing.
Yes, as I said, Botness is in the eye of the beholder, you can't get
more subjective than that.
You either are or you aren't.

That's not subjective that's objective.

Oops. I meant objective.

Are you always deliberately ambiguous?
No, sometimes I'm accidentally ambiguous, occasionally
I might be deliberately ambiguous, often I'm deliberately forthright, on
occasions I'm accidentally obvious and I have been known to be incoherent.
Now you sound like me after several pints.
Nahhhh even after several pints I still know what the BNP are.
List their policies then.

No.

Then I refuse to believe you know what they are.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:35:47 +0100, marc
initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:15:18 +0100, marc
initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

snip
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.
The BNP is a perfectly valid party and has more sensible policies
than the rest of them.
Your opinion has been noted.

What's that supposed to mean?



It is supposed to mean that I have made a note of your opinion.

Are you some kind of trainspotter? You have a list of opinions?
What's the point? Are you always deliberately ambiguous?

Give me ambiguity, or something else.

Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Manky Badger" <you.must@be.joking> wrote


There was one petition complaining about a super-mosque.
Anyone who signed up to it got a snotty email claiming to be from
Downing > Street calling them a racist.



No, they were sent an email explaining that the super-mosque story was a
hoax.

I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the whole
thing was racist.

Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Google is your friend.

?

A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Manky Badger" <you.must@be.joking> wrote


There was one petition complaining about a super-mosque.
Anyone who signed up to it got a snotty email claiming to be from
Downing > Street calling them a racist.


No, they were sent an email explaining that the super-mosque story was a
hoax.
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the whole
thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


Google is your friend.
?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (

Manky Badger wrote:
"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Manky Badger" <you.must@be.joking> wrote


There was one petition complaining about a super-mosque.
Anyone who signed up to it got a snotty email claiming to be from
Downing > Street calling them a racist.


No, they were sent an email explaining that the super-mosque story was
a hoax.
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the
whole thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


Google is your friend.
?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (


1,2,3,4,5,6,....

I hadn't realised who you were, If I had I woudn't have replied.

Manky Badger wrote:
"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Manky Badger" <you.must@be.joking> wrote


There was one petition complaining about a super-mosque.
Anyone who signed up to it got a snotty email claiming to be from
Downing > Street calling them a racist.


No, they were sent an email explaining that the super-mosque story
was a hoax.
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the
whole thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


Google is your friend.
?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (


1,2,3,4,5,6,....

I hadn't realised who you were, If I had I woudn't have replied.

Manky Badger wrote:
"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Manky Badger" <you.must@be.joking> wrote


There was one petition complaining about a super-mosque.
Anyone who signed up to it got a snotty email claiming to be from
Downing > Street calling them a racist.


No, they were sent an email explaining that the super-mosque story
was a hoax.
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the
whole thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


Google is your friend.
?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (


1,2,3,4,5,6,....

I hadn't realised who you were, If I had I woudn't have replied.

"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:N6KdnWQd-vvVVYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the
whole thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (


1,2,3,4,5,6,....

I hadn't realised who you were, If I had I woudn't have replied.

Remind us, what was it you posted about the BNP being barely literate?

"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:N6KdnWQd-vvVVYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"marc" <initial.surname@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:NtqdnfzfaJWpsYranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
Manky Badger wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" <russiatrucking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKadnejgksj84ovanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
I was sent an email telling me that the prime minister thought the
whole thing was racist.
Which proves? There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in courts,
it's not reliable! However I did read the petition, and IMHO it was
racist, it was also based on a false premise. The originator of the
petition also if I remember correctly had links with the BNP.

Since you ask, it proves that the preceding comment was inaccurate.


?
A phrase which means you can find things with Google

Jill Barham maybe a good place to start searching.

Again you show your ignorance of things Kentish (


1,2,3,4,5,6,....

I hadn't realised who you were, If I had I woudn't have replied.

Remind us, what was it you posted about the BNP being barely literate?