On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was
theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they
are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact,
it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking
for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it
wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly
consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest.
It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the
legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards.
It must be dishonest to be theft,
not the other way around. A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
even when there is no deception, i.e. the legal definition of
dishonest diverges from common English usage of the word.
FWIW, I suspect I agree with Roland behaviour 100%. It was the
responsibility of a massive corporation to have reliable billing
systems. However, if the gas (or similar) had been supplied by a poor
little old lady down the road, I would classify behaviour like Roland's
as theft.
So if everything about it was completely different, it would be
different? You'll have to give me a minute to process this revelation.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>> wrote:
[snipped]
If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
On 30/06/2026 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jun 2026 at 14:24:09 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Tell me again why he would choose to switch at all. That's what I'm not >>> getting.
According to you he is not entitled to use gas at all. So if the developer has
installed a gas boiler, gas cooker and gas fires then, again according to you,
in the absence of anyone willing to take responsibility for his gas supply he
must stop using them; and, presumably, switch to another power source. Or
starve and freeze and have no hot water to wash in.
Or did you temporarily forget what you were talking about?
No, I think rather that you're confused and disorientated in your own fog.
Continued use of the gas without payment or any agreement to the
contrary was illegal and immoral. He should have ceased use of it temporarily until he resolved the issue which should have been
relatively quick and certainly not a matter of years.
It was a resolvable issue even if he didn't know at the time how to go
about it. He could and should have taken advice, then acted.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:[Norm]
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >> wrote:
[snipped]
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
On 30 Jun 2026 at 17:10:40 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 30/06/2026 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jun 2026 at 14:24:09 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
Tell me again why he would choose to switch at all. That's what I'm not >>>> getting.
According to you he is not entitled to use gas at all. So if the developer has
installed a gas boiler, gas cooker and gas fires then, again according to you,
in the absence of anyone willing to take responsibility for his gas supply he
must stop using them; and, presumably, switch to another power source. Or >>> starve and freeze and have no hot water to wash in.
Or did you temporarily forget what you were talking about?
No, I think rather that you're confused and disorientated in your own fog. >>
Continued use of the gas without payment or any agreement to the
contrary was illegal and immoral. He should have ceased use of it
temporarily until he resolved the issue which should have been
relatively quick and certainly not a matter of years.
It was a resolvable issue even if he didn't know at the time how to go
about it. He could and should have taken advice, then acted.
This is truly laughable. Your solution to Roland's dilemma is simply that it shouldn't have happened.
To the chagrin of the hundreds of people in Roland's
position every year, who fail to engage a gas supplier despite every effort over months or years, your reply is that they are not doing it properly.* You have a secret solution which may not exist except in your mind but would have avoided the problem altogether.
Noting that according to your logic even ten
minutes of gas use *before* making an agreement with a supplier is theft, so everyone who buys a new house has to stop using gas or electricity until they get agreement from a supplier, just in case it may prove difficult to do so.
Or is it only theft after a Norman number of days of effort to engage a supplier? Or will you personally adjudicate in each case as to how long the gas use can continue without becoming theft if supplier agreement is delayed?
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that
was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
On 30 Jun 2026 at 16:40:09 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was
theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they
are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact,
it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking
for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it
wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly
consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the
legal system theft is necessarily dishonest, even when there is no
deception, i.e. the legal definition of dishonest diverges from common
English usage of the word.
FWIW, I suspect I agree with Roland behaviour 100%. It was the
responsibility of a massive corporation to have reliable billing
systems. However, if the gas (or similar) had been supplied by a poor
little old lady down the road, I would classify behaviour like Roland's
as theft.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
I entirely agree with the disuse of Norman's point. The analogy between a bag of magic beans that an old lady might perhaps own without being aware of them and a national import, storage and distribution system for natural gas involving many thousands of workers and a significant proportion of GDP is somewhat unhelpful, not least because the energy industry is subject to detailed statutory regulation, which the old lady's private possessions aren't. There is no obvious analogy between Roland's actions and any similar actions regarding the old lady's magic beans. I think we have to agree that it
is not within the realms of possibility that said old lady would own a large chunk of the energy sector, at least without employing a huge bureaucracy to manage it for her.
So, disuse it is.
On 30/06/2026 15:41, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/30/26 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela >>>> wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>> Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that
was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was theft, or >>> not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
The only person debating that was Norman. With himself.
Everyone else agreed that using gas *with every intention of paying for
it at some stage or other *isn't theft.
"(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."
Theft Act 1968, Section 2(2).
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
argument.
Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
what you're talking about."
And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
an ad-hom.
A better analogy might have been "Bottom". So that had Roland been living with Ade and Eddie, and had helped them steal gas from Mr Rotweiller*
next door, via a garden hose, and had failed to convince the gasman
who came to read their meter that they never used any gas, "we always
make our tea with cold water" he would definitely have been charged
with theft.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>> wrote:
[snipped]
If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was
theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they
are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact,
it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking
for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it
wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly
consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest.
It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the
legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards. It must be dishonest to be theft,
not the other way around.
A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
even when there is no deception, i.e. the legal definition of
dishonest diverges from common English usage of the word.
FWIW, I suspect I agree with Roland behaviour 100%. It was the
responsibility of a massive corporation to have reliable billing
systems. However, if the gas (or similar) had been supplied by a poor
little old lady down the road, I would classify behaviour like Roland's
as theft.
So if everything about it was completely different, it would be
different? You'll have to give me a minute to process this revelation.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I have asked after what period it ceases to be reasonable to use gas you are not paying for, ie days, weeks, months, years, decades or forever. What is *your* answer to that?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:naifsaF70hvU17@mid.individual.net...
Carol Kellar has ended up enjoying 20 years of free electricity worth an estimated +U10,000 after somehow slipping through the system back in
the 1990s when her house was incorrectly marked down as having been disconnected.
[..]
So it's far from clear what actually happened and why she never received
any bills as far back as 1993 - but what about the $64,000 question: was Kellar going to be hit with a huge back-bill? E.ON told us: "We will not be back-billing her." That decision reflects the fact that, as E.ON said, "we wouldn't have records [as to what happened in 1998] - we didn't own the company then".
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/07/no-electricity-bill-20-years
10,000 quids worth and they won't even be back billing her !
Its enough to make you sick; isn't it Norman ?
And just think, had Roland not moved out ,maybe he might have
eventually written a letter to the "Guardian" too. And he might
have got +U10,000 worth of free gas !
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
argument.
Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
what you're talking about."
And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
an ad-hom.
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was >>>>>>> theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they >>>>> are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact,
it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking
for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it
wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly
consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest.
It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the
legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards. It must be dishonest to be theft,
not the other way around.
A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the
inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
In fact, that is often the way it works.
The judge may match a pattern of behaviour to a precedent where a
similar pattern was judged to be theft.
For instance spending a large mysterious windfall payment wrongly
deposited into a bank account is considered theft. So it is dishonest.
Alternatively the beneficiary of a will may notice HMRC overpaid the
pension to the diseased after they were dead, but HMRC cannot force the beneficiary to give it back (a simplification). So it isn't dishonest.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him,
but we both know that Norman does sometimes make good points.
On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela >>wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid >>>>>non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that
was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
argument.
Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
what you're talking about."
To be honest, I don't remember Simon ever saying that. "You don't have
any legal qualifications", sure. "You don't know what you're talking
about", sure. Perhaps that remedying the former could cure the latter.
But not that former necessarily implies the latter.
And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
Haha. "Persistence" is an extremely charitable way of putting it.
Norman invariably either ignores, flatly denies, or posts nonsense
in response to valid arguments against whatever ludicrously position
he is purporting to hold at any particular time, so there is never
any point in engaging him in argument.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on
which he has admitted to changing his position in response to argument
- even after suffering some terrible accident which resulted in the
loss of several fingers. This leaves only ignoring him or mocking him, although the latter will of course generally be rejected in the
moderated group.
By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
an ad-hom.
It's not an "ad-hominem argument" because his accusation of dishonesty doesn't relate to an argument anyone else is making. But it does come
under moderation policy rule (a), which says that posts "will normally
be rejected if they imply that another contributor ... [is] dishonest".
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela wrote:
On 13:34-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
wrote:
On 10:44-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement.-a He was depriving its owner, whoever that
was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so?-a Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly against another poster.
On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
A better analogy might have been "Bottom". So that had Roland been living
with Ade and Eddie, and had helped them steal gas from Mr Rotweiller*
next door, via a garden hose, and had failed to convince the gasman
who came to read their meter that they never used any gas, "we always
make our tea with cold water" he would definitely have been charged
with theft.
The gas safety inspection person who comes round seems surprised, every
year, to learn that in our flat we have a gas supply but no gas meter.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nai779F70hvU9@mid.individual.net...
On 30/06/2026 15:41, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/30/26 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela >>>>> wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>>> Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>>> was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was theft, or
not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
The only person debating that was Norman. With himself.
Everyone else agreed that using gas *with every intention of paying for
it at some stage or other *isn't theft.
"(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be
dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."
Theft Act 1968, Section 2(2).
"may"; not "is".
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him, but we both know that Norman does sometimes make
good points.
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was >>>>>>>> theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they >>>>>> are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact, >>>>> it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking >>>>> for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it >>>>> wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly >>>> consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest.
It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the >>>> legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards. It must be dishonest to be theft,
not the other way around.
A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the >>> inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
In fact, that is often the way it works.
No, it isn't.
The judge may match a pattern of behaviour to a precedent where a
similar pattern was judged to be theft.
You mean a similar pattern was judged to be dishonest.
For instance spending a large mysterious windfall payment wrongly
deposited into a bank account is considered theft. So it is dishonest.
No. It's considered dishonest, therefore it's theft.
Alternatively the beneficiary of a will may notice HMRC overpaid the
pension to the diseased after they were dead, but HMRC cannot force the
beneficiary to give it back (a simplification). So it isn't dishonest.
That doesn't make any sense either. That sounds like something that
might be dishonest but isn't theft, rather than the other way around.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him,
You've managed to pack quite a lot of falsehoods and non sequiturs into
quite a short sentence there.
but we both know that Norman does sometimes make good points.
As I've said before, he's less a "stopped clock" that is right twice
a day and more a "stopped calendar" that's right once a year. But he's
been posting for several decades so it would be truly impressive if
he'd *never* been right, even if only by accident. It's just incredibly
rare. A magic 8-ball would be more reliable.
On 30/06/2026 20:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
A better analogy might have been "Bottom". So that had Roland been living >>> with Ade and Eddie, and had helped them steal gas from Mr Rotweiller*
next door, via a garden hose, and had failed to convince the gasman
who came to read their meter that they never used any gas, "we always
make our tea with cold water" he would definitely have been charged
with theft.
The gas safety inspection person who comes round seems surprised, every
year, to learn that in our flat we have a gas supply but no gas meter.
Quite right too. Who is paying for the gas you are using?
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was >>>>>>>> theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest this was >>>>>>>> a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not confessing >>>>>>> to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they >>>>>> are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to
a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact, >>>>> it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking >>>>> for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it >>>>> wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly >>>> consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it
when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest.
It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the >>>> legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards. It must be dishonest to be theft,
not the other way around.
A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the >>> inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
In fact, that is often the way it works.
No, it isn't.
The judge may match a pattern of behaviour to a precedent where a
similar pattern was judged to be theft.
You mean a similar pattern was judged to be dishonest.
For instance spending a large mysterious windfall payment wrongly
deposited into a bank account is considered theft. So it is dishonest.
No. It's considered dishonest, therefore it's theft.
Alternatively the beneficiary of a will may notice HMRC overpaid the
pension to the diseased after they were dead, but HMRC cannot force the
beneficiary to give it back (a simplification). So it isn't dishonest.
That doesn't make any sense either. That sounds like something that
might be dishonest but isn't theft, rather than the other way around.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him,
You've managed to pack quite a lot of falsehoods and non sequiturs into
quite a short sentence there.
but we both know that Norman does sometimes make good points.
As I've said before, he's less a "stopped clock" that is right twice
a day and more a "stopped calendar" that's right once a year. But he's
been posting for several decades so it would be truly impressive if
he'd *never* been right, even if only by accident. It's just incredibly
rare. A magic 8-ball would be more reliable.
On 2026-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 30/06/2026 20:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
A better analogy might have been "Bottom". So that had Roland been living >>>> with Ade and Eddie, and had helped them steal gas from Mr Rotweiller*
next door, via a garden hose, and had failed to convince the gasman
who came to read their meter that they never used any gas, "we always
make our tea with cold water" he would definitely have been charged
with theft.
The gas safety inspection person who comes round seems surprised, every
year, to learn that in our flat we have a gas supply but no gas meter.
Quite right too. Who is paying for the gas you are using?
I suppose me, sort of, but in an indirect, unmetered way. The heating
and hot water system is communal to the block, so the only gas usage
inside each flat is the cooker hobs, which I guess they decided is not
worth metering on an individual basis.
I imagine the total annual usage for the block is divided between the
flats, and my landlord presumably took this into account when deciding
how much rent they wanted to charge.
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their action is
theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal group should permit
a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
No, Norman is often right, it is just that his argumentative stile is very different from many other group members who have a legal background. Norman's style is more mathematical, from first principles. Legal members of the group tend to argue more from a precedent or consensus view point (in the view of my
learned friends etc). Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
On 6/30/26 22:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 15:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <1120ho3$vpqj$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>>>>> AIUI, the thread was debating if using the gas without paying was >>>>>>>>> theft, or not. Isn't that what a legal group is about?
If someone came onto the group and said that they often drive their >>>>>>>>> car above the speed limit, would it be permissible to suggest >>>>>>>>> this was a criminal offence?
The issue is making a personal attack on another person, not
confessing to a crime :-)
But if someone "confesses" to a crime, how do you point out that they >>>>>>> are a criminal, without making a personal attack?
In this particular case, it wasn't theoretical, it was specific to >>>>>> a poster, and it isn't just something like "driving over 35mph in
a 30mph limit is an offence" which is an objective, impersonal fact, >>>>>> it's "using gas that you have not received a bill for despite asking >>>>>> for one is dishonest", which is the opposite of impersonal even if it >>>>>> wasn't total bloody nonsense.
AIUI, Norman's argument was that it was theft because Roland knowingly >>>>> consumed gas he was not being charged for. He continued to consume it >>>>> when he knew he might never be charged for it.
Any argument that it's theft necessarily requires that it be dishonest. >>>> It's part of the definition of theft.
That is why it is theft. It is then dishonest because according to the >>>>> legal system theft is necessarily dishonest,
You've got that completely backwards. It must be dishonest to be theft, >>>> not the other way around.
A judge doesn't sit there in court going "well
I have decided that what you did was theft, therefore I am forced to the >>>> inevitable conclusion that you were dishonest".
In fact, that is often the way it works.
No, it isn't.
The judge may match a pattern of behaviour to a precedent where a
similar pattern was judged to be theft.
You mean a similar pattern was judged to be dishonest.
For instance spending a large mysterious windfall payment wrongly
deposited into a bank account is considered theft. So it is dishonest.
No. It's considered dishonest, therefore it's theft.
Theft is necessarily dishonest, Dishonesty is not necessarily theft.
Theft implies dishonest, dishonest does not imply theft.
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their
action is theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal
group should permit a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
Alternatively the beneficiary of a will may notice HMRC overpaid the
pension to the diseased after they were dead, but HMRC cannot force the
beneficiary to give it back (a simplification). So it isn't dishonest.
That doesn't make any sense either. That sounds like something that
might be dishonest but isn't theft, rather than the other way around.
In what way is keeping (and spending) an overpaid tax credit dishonest?
It doesn't involve deception, it doesn't involve a breach of trust, it
isn't illegal. The major difference between that and spending a large mistaken bank credit is just legal precedent. That is why one is
dishonest, and the other isn't.
So I think Norman's point should be allowed and disused.
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him,
You've managed to pack quite a lot of falsehoods and non sequiturs into
quite a short sentence there.
but we both know that Norman does sometimes make good points.
As I've said before, he's less a "stopped clock" that is right twice
a day and more a "stopped calendar" that's right once a year. But he's
been posting for several decades so it would be truly impressive if
he'd *never* been right, even if only by accident. It's just incredibly
rare. A magic 8-ball would be more reliable.
No, Norman is often right,
it is just that his argumentative stile is very different from many
other group members who have a legal background. Norman's style is
more mathematical, from first principles.
Legal members of the group tend to argue more from a precedent or
consensus view point (in the view of my learned friends etc). Both
styles have advantages and disadvantages.
On 30/06/2026 21:06, Pancho wrote:
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much >>time insulting him, but we both know that Norman does sometimes make good >>points.
Always, actually.
On 30/06/2026 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela >>wrote:
On 13:34-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela >>>>wrote:
On 10:44-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>>Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid >>>>>>>non-payment agreement.-a He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>>was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so?-a Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against >>>another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly against >>another poster.
which, if you actually look it up:
"attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of their opponent
rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument itself"
I have done nothing of the sort, but have concerned myself entirely with
the substance of the argument.
As always.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:1122diu$1m9tq$1@dont-email.me...
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their action is
theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal group should permit
a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
ULM is a moderated group. Any argument that an action committed
by a poster is theft, absent conclusive proof* that would stand up in a
Court of Law is clearly defamatory; and would potentially place the moderators who collectively passed such a post, at risk,
So why should they take that risk ?
No, Norman is often right, it is just that his argumentative stile is very >> different from many other group members who have a legal background. Norman's
style is more mathematical, from first principles. Legal members of the group
tend to argue more from a precedent or consensus view point (in the view of my
learned friends etc). Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
Norman is a troll who thrives on attention.
By their very nature trolls need to post incorrect information. Either
that or post outlandish views; so at to generate a response
The "mathematical style" to which you refer, is Norman' insistence on following through to the bitter end, the apparent logical implications
which follow from *his own* preferred definitions of words and phrases;
which often don't coincide with those used by everyone else.
Most notably as they feature in Statutes and the like.
As only in this way he can assemble that cast of dupes, patsies, and smartarses, such as myself; all queuing up for the chance to put his
right.
On 30/06/2026 in message <nairshF70hvU20@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 30/06/2026 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 13:34-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela
wrote:
On 10:44-a 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>>> Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement.-a He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>>> was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so?-a Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
against another poster.
which, if you actually look it up:
"attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of their opponent
rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument itself"
I have done nothing of the sort, but have concerned myself entirely
with the substance of the argument.
Apart from when calling somebody a thief of course.
On 2026-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
No, Norman is often right,
He is not.
it is just that his argumentative stile is very different from many
other group members who have a legal background. Norman's style is
more mathematical, from first principles.
It's like "mathematical, from first principles" if the person doing
the maths doesn't understand how addition works, has only a vague
notion of subtraction, and has never even heard of multiplication
or division.
Legal members of the group tend to argue more from a precedent or
consensus view point (in the view of my learned friends etc). Both
styles have advantages and disadvantages.
Well, Norman's style has the minor disadvantage that it means he's
almost always wrong. No advantages spring to mind right now.
On 30/06/2026 in message <naisbuF70hvU23@mid.individual.net> Norman
Wells wrote:
On 30/06/2026 21:06, Pancho wrote:
On 6/30/26 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Norman doesn't have a point. He never does. He is pointlessness
in human form.
I suspect if Norman never had a point the mods wouldn't spend so much
time insulting him, but we both know that Norman does sometimes make
good points.
Always, actually.
And so modest :-)
An argument is not defamatory.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:najvbtFkm5gU2@mid.individual.net...
An argument is not defamatory.
Back to the dodgey definitions, I see.
You just can't leave them alone, can you ?
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:1122diu$1m9tq$1@dont-email.me...
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their action is
theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal group should permit
a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
ULM is a moderated group. Any argument that an action committed
by a poster is theft, absent conclusive proof* that would stand up in a
Court of Law is clearly defamatory; and would potentially place the moderators who collectively passed such a post, at risk,
So why should they take that risk ?
No, Norman is often right, it is just that his argumentative stile is very >> different from many other group members who have a legal background. Norman's
style is more mathematical, from first principles. Legal members of the group
tend to argue more from a precedent or consensus view point (in the view of my
learned friends etc). Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
Norman is a troll who thrives on attention.
By their very nature trolls need to post incorrect information. Either
that or post outlandish views; so at to generate a response
The "mathematical style" to which you refer, is Norman' insistence on following through to the bitter end, the apparent logical implications
which follow from *his own* preferred definitions of words and phrases;
which often don't coincide with those used by everyone else.
Most notably as they feature in Statutes and the like.
As only in this way he can assemble that cast of dupes, patsies, and smartarses, such as myself; all queuing up for the chance to put his
right.
bb
* In which case it should be presented to the police. As failure to
do so could constitute a criminal offence, in itself.
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid >>>>>>non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against >>another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
against another poster.
On 1 Jul 2026 at 08:27:49 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122diu$1m9tq$1@dont-email.me...
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their action >>> is
theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal group should
permit
a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
ULM is a moderated group. Any argument that an action committed
by a poster is theft, absent conclusive proof* that would stand up in a
Court of Law is clearly defamatory; and would potentially place the
moderators who collectively passed such a post, at risk,
So why should they take that risk ?
No, Norman is often right, it is just that his argumentative stile is very >>> different from many other group members who have a legal background.
Norman's
style is more mathematical, from first principles. Legal members of the
group
tend to argue more from a precedent or consensus view point (in the view of >>> my
learned friends etc). Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
Norman is a troll who thrives on attention.
By their very nature trolls need to post incorrect information. Either
that or post outlandish views; so at to generate a response
The "mathematical style" to which you refer, is Norman' insistence on
following through to the bitter end, the apparent logical implications
which follow from *his own* preferred definitions of words and phrases;
which often don't coincide with those used by everyone else.
Most notably as they feature in Statutes and the like.
As only in this way he can assemble that cast of dupes, patsies, and
smartarses, such as myself; all queuing up for the chance to put his
right.
bb
* In which case it should be presented to the police. As failure to
do so could constitute a criminal offence, in itself.
As a legal aside, there are limited circumstances when people in England have any legal obligation to report crimes to the police. One for ulm rather than here, though.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:9606377837.57f23acb@uninhabited.net...
On 1 Jul 2026 at 08:27:49 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122diu$1m9tq$1@dont-email.me...
In other words, it is not possible to explain to a person that their action
is
theft without also saying that they are dishonest. A legal group should >>>> permit
a reasonable argument that an action committed by a poster is theft.
ULM is a moderated group. Any argument that an action committed
by a poster is theft, absent conclusive proof* that would stand up in a
Court of Law is clearly defamatory; and would potentially place the
moderators who collectively passed such a post, at risk,
So why should they take that risk ?
No, Norman is often right, it is just that his argumentative stile is very >>>> different from many other group members who have a legal background.
Norman's
style is more mathematical, from first principles. Legal members of the >>>> group
tend to argue more from a precedent or consensus view point (in the view of
my
learned friends etc). Both styles have advantages and disadvantages.
Norman is a troll who thrives on attention.
By their very nature trolls need to post incorrect information. Either
that or post outlandish views; so at to generate a response
The "mathematical style" to which you refer, is Norman' insistence on
following through to the bitter end, the apparent logical implications
which follow from *his own* preferred definitions of words and phrases;
which often don't coincide with those used by everyone else.
Most notably as they feature in Statutes and the like.
As only in this way he can assemble that cast of dupes, patsies, and
smartarses, such as myself; all queuing up for the chance to put his
right.
bb
* In which case it should be presented to the police. As failure to
do so could constitute a criminal offence, in itself.
As a legal aside, there are limited circumstances when people in England have
any legal obligation to report crimes to the police. One for ulm rather than >> here, though.
I was thinking in terms of offences covered by sections 44-46 of the
Serious Crime Act of 2007. Whereby not reporting a crime could be interpreted as encouraging the criminal to go on to commit further offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2
bb
On 22:35 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>> Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>> was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
against another poster.
My apologies as I hadn't realised the comment was made about someone in
this group. I wrongly thought it was some other person in another
situation.
On 1 Jul 2026 at 13:35:13 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I was thinking in terms of offences covered by sections 44-46 of the
Serious Crime Act of 2007. Whereby not reporting a crime could be interpreted
as encouraging the criminal to go on to commit further offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2
Most notable for defining "inaction" as an action. Anyone know what the courts
have made of this - but this is not of course the place to answer.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2026 at 13:35:13 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I was thinking in terms of offences covered by sections 44-46 of the
Serious Crime Act of 2007. Whereby not reporting a crime could be interpreted
as encouraging the criminal to go on to commit further offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2
Most notable for defining "inaction" as an action. Anyone know what the courts
have made of this - but this is not of course the place to answer.
Then why pose the question here, if this is not the place for replies?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2026 at 13:35:13 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I was thinking in terms of offences covered by sections 44-46 of the
Serious Crime Act of 2007. Whereby not reporting a crime could be interpreted
as encouraging the criminal to go on to commit further offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2
Most notable for defining "inaction" as an action. Anyone know what the courts
have made of this - but this is not of course the place to answer.
Then why pose the question here, if this is not the place for replies?
Where do you expect replies to appear?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you >respond.
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you respond.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 20:09:31 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you >> respond.
More like 70k+ now.
The mind boggles at what he thinks that is achieving.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from
tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the
Catholic Church.
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from
tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the
Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
On 01/07/2026 20:09, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
[]
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you >> respond.
Sorry, but I don't recognise that allegation at all. It's really not my >style.
Do you perhaps have some examples with which you can regale us or even
refer to with message ids? Just one would be a start, if you can. But
I doubt if you'll be able.
Anyway, what's this vague allusion to Galileo about?
On 1 Jul 2026 at 15:53:27 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2026 at 13:35:13 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I was thinking in terms of offences covered by sections 44-46 of the
Serious Crime Act of 2007. Whereby not reporting a crime could be interpreted
as encouraging the criminal to go on to commit further offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2
Most notable for defining "inaction" as an action. Anyone know what the courts
have made of this - but this is not of course the place to answer.
Then why pose the question here, if this is not the place for replies?
Where do you expect replies to appear?
A paradox with which you are clearly having difficulty coping. A little Valium
might help.
On 01/07/2026 13:30, Pamela wrote:
On 22:35 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
Pamela wrote:
On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>>>> Wells wrote:
"He was using the gas without payment and without any valid
non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>>> was, permanently of it."
That is a personal attack Norman.
How so? Forgive my confusion.
Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
against another poster.
My apologies as I hadn't realised the comment was made about someone in
this group. I wrongly thought it was some other person in another
situation.
It's still just a restatement of the facts he originally posted.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>[]
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from
tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the
Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>>[]
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner.
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from
tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the
Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know
why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good
move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know,
but maybe worth a shot?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>>>[]An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? >>>>>>>>>
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >>>>>>
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from >>>>> tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the >>>>> Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know
why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good
move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know,
but maybe worth a shot?
Do I really have to point out how you showed your total lack of
understanding of what "quote mining" is when you claimed an example of
me doing so when I quoted an article about child abuse in the Catholic
Church by a highly reputable professor in a leading academic journal
but didn't mention he was a Catholic, even though the opening sentence
in the quote described him as "the Augustin Cardinal Bea,
S.J.University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy,
religious studies"?
Do I really have to remind you of you showing your religious bias by suggesting that even though he is highly qualified and held numerous high-level positions including director of mental
health services at the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto, that he couldn't really be trusted to talk about child abuse because he was a
member of the Catholic Church?
Do I really have to remind you of your accusation that I was telling
lies when I said I was simply correcting factual errors, not
*defending*the Church, showing your poor understanding of the
difference between objectivity and advocacy?
You actually remind me of the poster in the other ng that John was
alluding to. You, like he, seem to think that simply disagreeing with
you equates to telling lies.
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>>>>[]An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? >>>>>>>>>>
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >>>>>>>
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from >>>>>> tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the >>>>>> Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know >>>why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good >>>move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know, >>>but maybe worth a shot?
Do I really have to point out how you showed your total lack of
understanding of what "quote mining" is when you claimed an example of
me doing so when I quoted an article about child abuse in the Catholic
Church by a highly reputable professor in a leading academic journal
but didn't mention he was a Catholic, even though the opening sentence
in the quote described him as "the Augustin Cardinal Bea,
S.J.University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy,
religious studies"?
You could, but it would be a lie if you did.
And it's a bit concerning
that you've been obssessing over that thread from well over a year ago,
turning it over and over in your mind trying to think of ways you could
have avoided what happened, coming up with new attempted defences that
you regret didn't occur to you at the time. "l'esprit de l'escalier" is
all very well, but you're more than a dollar short and *much* more than
a day late.
Do I really have to remind you of you showing your religious bias by
suggesting that even though he is highly qualified and held numerous
high-level positions including director of mental
health services at the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto, that he
couldn't really be trusted to talk about child abuse because he was a
member of the Catholic Church?
That would be another lie - I said no such thing.
Do I really have to remind you of your accusation that I was telling
lies when I said I was simply correcting factual errors, not
*defending*the Church, showing your poor understanding of the
difference between objectivity and advocacy?
You could go back and read the thread again I suppose, and find the
post where I gave you the dictionary definition of "defend", to aid
your understanding.
You actually remind me of the poster in the other ng that John was
alluding to. You, like he, seem to think that simply disagreeing with
you equates to telling lies.
That would be... another utterly obvious, provable lie. People disagree
with me all the time, yet I only very rarely describe what they said as
a lie.
You really can't help yourself, can you? For some reason you've decided
to randomly bring up the fact that you were exposed as constantly lying
in an old thread from last year, as if you're worried that people might
have forgotten.
And just to make sure, you've immediately hit the ground
running with a rapid barrage of lies this time too. Have you never heard
the expression "let sleeping dogs lie"? People had probably forgotten
your humiliation, and now you're here reminding them all over again.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:41:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>>>>>[]An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? >>>>>>>>>>>
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >>>>>>>>
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from >>>>>>> tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the >>>>>>> Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know >>>>why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good >>>>move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know, >>>>but maybe worth a shot?
Do I really have to point out how you showed your total lack of
understanding of what "quote mining" is when you claimed an example of
me doing so when I quoted an article about child abuse in the Catholic
Church by a highly reputable professor in a leading academic journal
but didn't mention he was a Catholic, even though the opening sentence
in the quote described him as "the Augustin Cardinal Bea,
S.J.University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy,
religious studies"?
You could, but it would be a lie if you did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
"Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote
mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
Let's see you explain how leaving out the author's religion fits into
that.
And it's a bit concerning
that you've been obssessing over that thread from well over a year ago,
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
turning it over and over in your mind trying to think of ways you could >>have avoided what happened, coming up with new attempted defences that
you regret didn't occur to you at the time. "l'esprit de l'escalier" is
all very well, but you're more than a dollar short and *much* more than
a day late.
Do I really have to remind you of you showing your religious bias by
suggesting that even though he is highly qualified and held numerous
high-level positions including director of mental
health services at the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto, that he
couldn't really be trusted to talk about child abuse because he was a
member of the Catholic Church?
That would be another lie - I said no such thing.
Do I really have to remind you of your accusation that I was telling
lies when I said I was simply correcting factual errors, not
*defending*the Church, showing your poor understanding of the
difference between objectivity and advocacy?
You could go back and read the thread again I suppose, and find the
post where I gave you the dictionary definition of "defend", to aid
your understanding.
You actually remind me of the poster in the other ng that John was
alluding to. You, like he, seem to think that simply disagreeing with
you equates to telling lies.
That would be... another utterly obvious, provable lie. People disagree >>with me all the time, yet I only very rarely describe what they said as
a lie.
You really can't help yourself, can you? For some reason you've decided
to randomly bring up the fact that you were exposed as constantly lying
in an old thread from last year, as if you're worried that people might >>have forgotten.
Poor attempt at blame-shifting when you were the one who instigated it
here.
And just to make sure, you've immediately hit the ground
running with a rapid barrage of lies this time too. Have you never heard >>the expression "let sleeping dogs lie"? People had probably forgotten
your humiliation, and now you're here reminding them all over again.
It seems you had forgotten your own humiliation in that thread -
religious bigotry is hardly the image you like to project.
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:41:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed...
three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:06:25 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed...
three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
I'm not getting involved further; this seems like another unending "discussion".
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:06:25 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:41:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
Far too deep, I've snipped a lot.
[pants-on-fire tennis]
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed...
three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
I'm not getting involved further; this seems like another unending >"discussion".
On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
Pope John Paul II issued a correction:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on
different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the
experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as
the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a
planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when
they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our
understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way,
imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...
Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g.,
denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC).
On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 14:53:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
Pope John Paul II issued a correction:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on
different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the
experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as
the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a
planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when
they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our
understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way,
imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...
Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g.,
denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC).
Mostly an American evangelical thing, you don't get much of it this
side of the Atlantic
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:41:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>>>>>>>>><admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. >>>>>>>>>>>[]An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in >>>>>>>>>>>> protracted exchanges with him.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? >>>>>>>>>>>>
In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >>>>>>>>>
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from >>>>>>>> tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the >>>>>>>> Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know >>>>>why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good >>>>>move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know, >>>>>but maybe worth a shot?
Do I really have to point out how you showed your total lack of
understanding of what "quote mining" is when you claimed an example of >>>> me doing so when I quoted an article about child abuse in the Catholic >>>> Church by a highly reputable professor in a leading academic journal
but didn't mention he was a Catholic, even though the opening sentence >>>> in the quote described him as "the Augustin Cardinal Bea,
S.J.University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy,
religious studies"?
You could, but it would be a lie if you did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
"Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote
mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its
surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
Let's see you explain how leaving out the author's religion fits into
that.
Because the author's religion was central to the point under discussion.
Why did you think that would be difficult to explain?
Since I'm feeling particularly generous, here's a free clue: you are >misremembering the thread. If you want to keep talking about it, I'd
strongly suggest you go and read it again. You might even discover
the fundamental mistake you made at the time.
And it's a bit concerning
that you've been obssessing over that thread from well over a year ago,
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed...
three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
turning it over and over in your mind trying to think of ways you could >>>have avoided what happened, coming up with new attempted defences that >>>you regret didn't occur to you at the time. "l'esprit de l'escalier" is >>>all very well, but you're more than a dollar short and *much* more than
a day late.
Do I really have to remind you of you showing your religious bias by
suggesting that even though he is highly qualified and held numerous
high-level positions including director of mental
health services at the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto, that he >>>> couldn't really be trusted to talk about child abuse because he was a
member of the Catholic Church?
That would be another lie - I said no such thing.
Do I really have to remind you of your accusation that I was telling
lies when I said I was simply correcting factual errors, not
*defending*the Church, showing your poor understanding of the
difference between objectivity and advocacy?
You could go back and read the thread again I suppose, and find the
post where I gave you the dictionary definition of "defend", to aid
your understanding.
You actually remind me of the poster in the other ng that John was
alluding to. You, like he, seem to think that simply disagreeing with
you equates to telling lies.
That would be... another utterly obvious, provable lie. People disagree >>>with me all the time, yet I only very rarely describe what they said as
a lie.
Presumably your inability to come up with a response to any of the above
is a tacit admission that you were lying.
You really can't help yourself, can you? For some reason you've decided >>>to randomly bring up the fact that you were exposed as constantly lying >>>in an old thread from last year, as if you're worried that people might >>>have forgotten.
Poor attempt at blame-shifting when you were the one who instigated it
here.
Look, just a small suggestion here: if you really must constantly lie, >perhaps you should choose lies that anyone reading can't instantly
prove to be false merely by reading back a few posts up the thread?
And just to make sure, you've immediately hit the ground
running with a rapid barrage of lies this time too. Have you never heard >>>the expression "let sleeping dogs lie"? People had probably forgotten >>>your humiliation, and now you're here reminding them all over again.
It seems you had forgotten your own humiliation in that thread -
religious bigotry is hardly the image you like to project.
It's not possible to "forget" things that never happened.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:06:25 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:41:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:07:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:25:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:14:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-07-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >>>>>>>>>>
Why, have you been lying and quote-mining again?
Nah, just a guy in another ng who, like yourself, can't refrain from >>>>>>>>> tossing out unfounded allegations because he has a 'thing' about the >>>>>>>>> Catholic Church.
So yes, you're lying again.
QED
I confess: when you lie, I will occasionally point it out. I don't know >>>>>>why you think drawing attention to me pointing out your lies is a good >>>>>>move on your part. You could always try not lying. Crazy idea, I know, >>>>>>but maybe worth a shot?
Do I really have to point out how you showed your total lack of
understanding of what "quote mining" is when you claimed an example of >>>>> me doing so when I quoted an article about child abuse in the Catholic >>>>> Church by a highly reputable professor in a leading academic journal >>>>> but didn't mention he was a Catholic, even though the opening sentence >>>>> in the quote described him as "the Augustin Cardinal Bea,
S.J.University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy,
religious studies"?
You could, but it would be a lie if you did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
"Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote
mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its
surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
Let's see you explain how leaving out the author's religion fits into
that.
Because the author's religion was central to the point under discussion.
Why did you think that would be difficult to explain?
You did not explain it, you made no attempt to explain how not
mentioning his religion equates to "a passage [being] removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning".
Since I'm feeling particularly generous, here's a free clue: you are >>misremembering the thread. If you want to keep talking about it, I'd >>strongly suggest you go and read it again. You might even discover
the fundamental mistake you made at the time.
And it's a bit concerning
that you've been obssessing over that thread from well over a year ago,
It's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed... >>three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
I made a comment to John Mudd-Kerr and you jumped in with "Why, have
you been lying and quote-mining *again*? (my emphasis added). That is
what instigated the exchange between us.
The reference to "again" is a direct implication that I have been
caught previously.
In regard to "quote-mining", the only exchange between us involving
that that I can recall is the one mentioned above. Feel free to remind
me if there was some other one that you were referring to.
In regard to being caught *lying*, I have had many disagreements with
posters here and in UKLM, some of them quite vociferous, but the only occasion I can recall being called a liar was in the thread titled
"Removal of Jury trials - Rejection abuse"[1] which wandered more or
less into a follow-up from the one above. I said that I had never
defended the Church in regard to child abuse, that I had only
corrected errors and misconceptions. That was where you accused me of
lying, that my 'explaining' amounted to defending.
You really need to wake up to how pretentious it is for you to dismiss somebody as telling lies just because their opinion differs from
yours.
On 2026-07-04, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 14:53:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens[Norm]
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
[snipped]
or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church.
This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this?
An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in
protracted exchanges with him.
Pope John Paul II issued a correction:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on
different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the
experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as
the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a
planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when
they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our
understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way,
imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...
Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g.,
denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC).
Mostly an American evangelical thing, you don't get much of it this
side of the Atlantic
Fortunately not yet, but they are trying to export various aspects of >extremist Protestantism here.
On 2026-07-04, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
"Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote
mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its
surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
Let's see you explain how leaving out the author's religion fits into
that.
Because the author's religion was central to the point under discussion.
Why did you think that would be difficult to explain?
You did not explain it, you made no attempt to explain how not
mentioning his religion equates to "a passage [being] removed from its
surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning".
Because you copied a large quote from the page but excluded the part
of the surrounding matter that contained the explicit reference to his >religion that would have disproved your point.
I'm beginning to think the reason you thought it would be hard to
explain is less any intrinsic complexity in doing so and more the
difficulty of explaining anything to you that you would prefer to
continue to not understand.
To the best of my recollection, the only reason I mentioned quote
mining at all was that you had just accused someone else of it, so
I thought it was mildly amusing that you had then almost immediately
engaged in it yourself. It was the hypocrisy I was pointing out.
Since I'm feeling particularly generous, here's a free clue: you are >>>misremembering the thread. If you want to keep talking about it, I'd >>>strongly suggest you go and read it again. You might even discover
the fundamental mistake you made at the time.
And it's a bit concerningIt's clearly you who is obsessed, jumping into a discussion between
that you've been obssessing over that thread from well over a year ago, >>>>
myself and John Mudd-Kerr to toss out more accusations about me lying.
Every single part of that sentence is a lie. I think you've managed... >>>three or four lies in two lines there. It's actually impressive.
I made a comment to John Mudd-Kerr and you jumped in with "Why, have
you been lying and quote-mining *again*? (my emphasis added). That is
what instigated the exchange between us.
The reference to "again" is a direct implication that I have been
caught previously.
Yes, the previous occasion that you had just made reference to.
In regard to "quote-mining", the only exchange between us involving
that that I can recall is the one mentioned above. Feel free to remind
me if there was some other one that you were referring to.
In regard to being caught *lying*, I have had many disagreements with
posters here and in UKLM, some of them quite vociferous, but the only
occasion I can recall being called a liar was in the thread titled
"Removal of Jury trials - Rejection abuse"[1] which wandered more or
less into a follow-up from the one above. I said that I had never
defended the Church in regard to child abuse, that I had only
corrected errors and misconceptions. That was where you accused me of
lying, that my 'explaining' amounted to defending.
So you admit that you were directly referencing our previous
conversation, which is only one of the reasons that your claim
that I "jumped in" to a conversation between you and John is a lie.
You really need to wake up to how pretentious it is for you to dismiss
somebody as telling lies just because their opinion differs from
yours.
Yet you are lying by knowingly, falsely, claiming that I do that.
All you need to do to not be called a liar is not to lie.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:44:16 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,415 |