In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
On 2026-09-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being
'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Now I'm not saying that you've
done anything contrary to that Act, nor indeed that the police would
be terribly likely to do anything about it even if you had, but making
a truthful complaint to the police about perceived harassment would
most certainly not be an offence under the Crminal Law Act 1967 s5(2).
On 04/09/2026 15:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being >>> 'meta'I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>>> ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both. >>
Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Now I'm not saying that you've
done anything contrary to that Act, nor indeed that the police would
be terribly likely to do anything about it even if you had, but making
a truthful complaint to the police about perceived harassment would
most certainly not be an offence under the Crminal Law Act 1967 s5(2).
If it's purely malicious and unfounded (as in "just might ... to see
what happens"), I disagree.
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as
much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the moderators.
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
On 4 Sep 2026 at 15:23:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being
'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both. >>
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as
much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the moderators. >>
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
The moderators bit is a clear breach of the moderation policy.
What precisely did you expect?
On 04/09/2026 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Sep 2026 at 15:23:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being >>> 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>>> ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both. >>>
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as
much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the moderators.
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
The moderators bit is a clear breach of the moderation policy.
Since you're so sure, would you care to quote the rule you think applies?
Or will you just go quiet when you find you're once again utterly mistaken?
What precisely did you expect?
I expect moderation in accordance with the published moderation policy. Don't you?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ng0e7tFk14eU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/09/2026 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Sep 2026 at 15:23:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being >>>> 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>>>> ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both. >>>>
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as >>>> much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the moderators.
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
The moderators bit is a clear breach of the moderation policy.
Since you're so sure, would you care to quote the rule you think applies?
quote:
n) Discussions about moderation policy and whether individual posts should have been accepted or rejected will not as a general rule be permitted within the group and should instead take place in uk.net.news.moderation.
:unquote
https://uklegal.weebly.com/
You simply over-egged it for ULM.
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory
claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
On 04/09/2026 19:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ng0e7tFk14eU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/09/2026 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:quote:
On 4 Sep 2026 at 15:23:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being >>>>> 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4 >>>>> Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>>>>> ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint ** >>>>>> ** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under >>>>> Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>>>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as >>>>> much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the
moderators.
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
The moderators bit is a clear breach of the moderation policy.
Since you're so sure, would you care to quote the rule you think applies? >>
n) Discussions about moderation policy and whether individual posts should >> have been accepted or rejected will not as a general rule be permitted within
the group and should instead take place in uk.net.news.moderation.
:unquote
https://uklegal.weebly.com/
You simply over-egged it for ULM.
But it just doesn't apply.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net...Mr Perry was the one discussing, or rather alleging, that my posts
On 04/09/2026 19:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ng0e7tFk14eU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/09/2026 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:quote:
On 4 Sep 2026 at 15:23:17 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
I've just had my reply in this extraordinary exchange rejected for being >>>>>> 'meta'
"On 04/09/2026 13:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nfvb26Fe7h6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:41:58 on Fri, 4 >>>>>> Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>>>>>> ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint ** >>>>>>> ** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under >>>>>> Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>>>>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as >>>>>> much a contributor as I have. I suggest you take it up with the
moderators.
Oh, hang on a minute ...."
Strange people, moderators.
The moderators bit is a clear breach of the moderation policy.
Since you're so sure, would you care to quote the rule you think applies? >>>
n) Discussions about moderation policy and whether individual posts should >>> have been accepted or rejected will not as a general rule be permitted within
the group and should instead take place in uk.net.news.moderation.
:unquote
https://uklegal.weebly.com/
You simply over-egged it for ULM.
But it just doesn't apply.
" As regards what you consider to be off-topic posts, you've been just as
much a contributor as I have "
n)Discussions about moderation policy and *whether individual posts should have been accepted or rejected *will not as a general rule be permitted
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory
claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
Mr Perry was the one discussing, or rather alleging, that my posts
should have been rejected, not me. But mine were all moderated and
deemed acceptable to appear in the group. His weren't.
He's a moderator, you see, but lacks the self-awareness to apply to
himself the rules he thinks should be applied to others. That's why I
say all his posts should henceforth be subject to manual moderation.
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory
claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
You need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the
activities of one of my lawyer friends.
In message <slrn119lm79.2a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
14:42:49 on Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my family ** >>> > ** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, or
both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
As later amended, and in ways which myself and late wife had a
significant input into the drafting.
In message <ng2854Fr77qU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:10:44 on Sat, 5 Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Mr Perry was the one discussing, or rather alleging, that my posts
should have been rejected, not me.-a But mine were all moderated and
deemed acceptable to appear in the group.-a His weren't.
He's a moderator, you see, but lacks the self-awareness to apply to
himself the rules he thinks should be applied to others.-a That's why I
say all his posts should henceforth be subject to manual moderation.
I would never post anything which I would expect to fail moderation.
On 05/09/2026 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrn119lm79.2a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
14:42:49 on Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>remarked:
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my
family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint **
** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under
Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum penalty of >>>> six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale,
or both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
As later amended, and in ways which myself and late wife had a >>significant input into the drafting.
No link, no argument.
On 05/09/2026 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4
Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially >>>>defamatory
claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which should >>>> you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
You need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the >>defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the >>activities of one of my lawyer friends.
No link, no argument.
On 05/09/2026 11:50, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng2854Fr77qU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:10:44 on Sat, 5
Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Mr Perry was the one discussing, or rather alleging, that my posts >>>should have been rejected, not me.a But mine were all moderated and >>>deemed acceptable to appear in the group.a His weren't.
He's a moderator, you see, but lacks the self-awareness to apply to >>>himself the rules he thinks should be applied to others.a That's why
I say all his posts should henceforth be subject to manual moderation.
I would never post anything which I would expect to fail moderation.
That is why it needs to be put to independent test. You clearly lack
the self-awareness to see it.
In message <ng2cg3Fr77qU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:50 on Sat, 5 Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrn119lm79.2a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
14:42:49 on Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
remarked:
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my
family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint ** >>>>> > ** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under >>>>> Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum
penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale,
or-a both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
-aAs later amended, and in ways which myself and late wife had a
significant input into the drafting.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's two-nil, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
On 05/09/2026 12:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng2cg3Fr77qU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:50 on Sat, 5
Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrn119lm79.2a0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at >>>>14:42:49 on Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>remarked:
** I wish you would desist in your delusional stalking of my
family **
** This is becoming beyond a joke, way outside the group's **
** terms of reference, and I think I might just make a complaint ** >>>>>> > ** to the police, to see what happens **
Wasting police time is a criminal offence in England and Wales under >>>>>> Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, carrying a maximum >>>>>>penalty of
six months in prison, a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, >>>>>>ora both.
I'd imagine he'd be making a report of harassment contrary to the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
aAs later amended, and in ways which myself and late wife had a >>>>significant input into the drafting.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the >>Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's two-nil, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
I'm not going to guess at what point you're singularly failing to make. >That's for you.
In message <ng2cf2Fr77qU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:17 on Sat, 5 Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4
Sep-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory >>>>> claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which
should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
-aYou need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the
defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the
activities of one of my lawyer friends.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's four-nil, now, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
On 05/09/2026 12:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng2cf2Fr77qU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:17 on Sat, 5 Sep
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4
Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory >>>>>> claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which
should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
You need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the
defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the
activities of one of my lawyer friends.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the
Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's four-nil, now, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
It's just a pity that, if you think I've done anything illegal on ulm,
you are implicating all your fellow moderators who were complicit in it
by approving and publishing every one of my supposedly heinous posts.
Maybe you should be apologising to them.
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:03:03 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 12:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng2cf2Fr77qU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:17 on Sat, 5 Sep >>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4 >>>>> Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory >>>>>>> claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which >>>>>>> should
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk
Well, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
You need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the >>>>> defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the
activities of one of my lawyer friends.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the
Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's four-nil, now, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
It's just a pity that, if you think I've done anything illegal on ulm,
you are implicating all your fellow moderators who were complicit in it
by approving and publishing every one of my supposedly heinous posts.
Maybe you should be apologising to them.
If you did something illegal him thinking it is illegal is neither here nor there!
On 05/09/2026 20:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:03:03 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 12:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng2cf2Fr77qU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:24:17 on Sat, 5 Sep >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/09/2026 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ng0gv6Fk14eU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:28:54 on Fri, 4 >>>>>> Sep 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the potentially defamatory >>>>>>>> claim concerning your "delusional stalking" of his family; which >>>>>>>> shouldWell, it is of course defamatory and potentially actionable.
you have the resources, could put all of the moderators at risk >>>>>>>
You need to get yourself up to speed on the latest amendments to the >>>>>> defamation law, which as it happens were largely a result of the
activities of one of my lawyer friends.
No link, no argument.
If you are so incompetent you can't find recent legislation on the
Government website, then you lose. I also note that very time I ask
you for a link to some proposition you are trying support, you come
back saying "do your own homework".
So that's four-nil, now, and it's hardly even lunchtime yet.
It's just a pity that, if you think I've done anything illegal on ulm,
you are implicating all your fellow moderators who were complicit in it
by approving and publishing every one of my supposedly heinous posts.
Maybe you should be apologising to them.
If you did something illegal him thinking it is illegal is neither here nor >> there!
I suspect you're not really bright enough to appreciate what I said.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:45:38 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,028 |