| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:26:21 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
Which is serious, perhaps treasonous, criminal damage. But it simply
doesn't meet the criteria for terrorism - the essence of which is
striking civilian targets to demoralise populations. Not military
actions.
Are you sure that is a correct definition of terrorism under UK law?
I thought it was something to do with attempting to affect government
policy by means of criminal activity, but of course ICBW.
The UK legal definition of terrorism, which would include the UK
government itself as a terrorist organisation, is much more wide-
ranging than the dictionary definition. I would assume Roger was
referring to the latter.
Is any of what I said factually incorrect?-a If not, how can it be abusive?
On 12/08/2025 14:07, Norman Wells wrote:
Is any of what I said factually incorrect?-a If not, how can it be
abusive?
If I say, "Norman Wells seems to be a fuckwit" is it factually
incorrect?-a If not, can it be abusive?
You may wish to reference Blake & Another v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB) in
your reply.
Similarly, you may wish to pay attention to the actual wording in the moderation policy which states "offensive personal remarks about another contributor will normally be rejected" as will posts that "imply that another contributor who is likely to see the post is stupid or
dishonest, regardless of whether such observations contain any truth".
Do you accept that a moderator may feel that you:
(a) made an offensive personal remark about another poster?
(b) implied that another contributor is stupid or dishonest?
On 12/08/2025 14:07, Norman Wells wrote:
Is any of what I said factually incorrect?-a If not, how can it be
abusive?
If I say, "Norman Wells seems to be a fuckwit" is it factually
incorrect?
If not, can it be abusive?
You may wish to reference Blake & Another v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB) in
your reply.
Similarly, you may wish to pay attention to the actual wording in the moderation policy which states "offensive personal remarks about another contributor will normally be rejected" as will posts that "imply that another contributor who is likely to see the post is stupid or
dishonest, regardless of whether such observations contain any truth".
Do you accept that a moderator may feel that you:
(a) made an offensive personal remark about another poster?
(b) implied that another contributor is stupid or dishonest?
In the Palestine Action Arrests thread, I've just had a message rejected because 'Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful
to another contributor'. The question is was it?
The conversation went:
"Hayter:
Which is serious, perhaps treasonous, criminal damage. But it simply
doesn't meet the criteria for terrorism - the essence of which is
striking civilian targets to demoralise populations. Not military
actions.
Spike:
Are you sure that is a correct definition of terrorism under UK law?
I thought it was something to do with attempting to affect government
policy by means of criminal activity, but of course ICBW.
Ribbens:
The UK legal definition of terrorism, which would include the UK
government itself as a terrorist organisation, is much more wide-
ranging than the dictionary definition. I would assume Roger was
referring to the latter.
Me:
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to
any reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries
and the law. He seems quite content with the obvious certainty of
whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not, "personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive? >>
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering >> from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and
the law?
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive? >>>
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any
reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and
the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs.
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive? >>>
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any
reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and
the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs.
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive? >>
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering >> from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any reputable source
for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law?
On 12/08/2025 06:14 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>>>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any
reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and
the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and
Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs.
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look >> like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
"Are" for "Ah"?
Oh, come now...
The sheer IRONY! :-)
On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>>>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any
reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and
the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and
Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs.
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look >> like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once
again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
On 12 Aug 2025 at 18:59:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageOf what or whom?
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He >>>>>> seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head." >>>>>>
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,. >>>>
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any
reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and >>>> the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and
Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs.
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look
like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once
again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
So, you accuse me of lying, then claim something else that I don't do that you
forgot to put in your sweeping statement. As I say, contemptible.
On 12/08/2025 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 18:59:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageOf what or whom?
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He
seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head." >>>>>>>
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not, >>>>>> "personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions; >>>>>> or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,. >>>>>
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any >>>>> reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and >>>>> the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and >>>> Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs. >>>>
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look
like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once
again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
So, you accuse me of lying, then claim something else that I don't do that you
forgot to put in your sweeping statement. As I say, contemptible.
Eh? I asked you for a link, as I said you don't seem ever to give, and
here you are once again doing exactly the same. I think you prove my
point for me.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg19tkFn03eU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not,
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head."
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive? >>>
"personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions;
or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,.
Of what or whom?
You said you never recalled any instance of RH using a reputable source.
In other words he posts totally spurious information.
Which while not contrary to UKLM rules
fortunately for you, neverheless reflects badly on his reputation
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any reputable source
for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law?
You only ever post on UKLM intermittently.
And yet claim to be monitoring all of RH's posts to the extent that if he ever gave a link to any reputable source, you'd have known all about it
Strange.
Or do "they" simply prevent you from posting ; during these enforced "holidays"
I make no such claims in the first place; as I don't read all of RH's posts nor the threads that he contributes to,
On 12 Aug 2025 at 21:51:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 18:59:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageOf what or whom?
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He
seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head." >>>>>>>>
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not, >>>>>>> "personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions; >>>>>>> or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,. >>>>>>
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any >>>>>> reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and >>>>>> the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and >>>>> Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs. >>>>>
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look
like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once
again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
So, you accuse me of lying, then claim something else that I don't do that you
forgot to put in your sweeping statement. As I say, contemptible.
Eh? I asked you for a link, as I said you don't seem ever to give, and
here you are once again doing exactly the same. I think you prove my
point for me.
Why do you want a link to a recent post of mine? Do you want to read it for some reason? Are you doubting the truth of its existence?
Is your request
merely an algorithmic response to my post? I'm really not interested.
On 12/08/2025 21:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 21:51:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 18:59:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageOf what or whom?
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He
seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head." >>>>>>>>>
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not, >>>>>>>> "personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions; >>>>>>>> or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,. >>>>>>>
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any >>>>>>> reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and >>>>>>> the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and >>>>>> Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs. >>>>>>
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look
like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once
again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
So, you accuse me of lying, then claim something else that I don't do that you
forgot to put in your sweeping statement. As I say, contemptible.
Eh? I asked you for a link, as I said you don't seem ever to give, and
here you are once again doing exactly the same. I think you prove my
point for me.
Why do you want a link to a recent post of mine? Do you want to read it for >> some reason? Are you doubting the truth of its existence?
Yes, actually. If you disagree, give the message id.
Is your request
merely an algorithmic response to my post? I'm really not interested.
I think you just can't support anything you say.
Prove me wrong. IF you can.
On 12 Aug 2025 at 22:01:39 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 21:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 21:51:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 12/08/2025 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 18:59:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/08/2025 18:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Aug 2025 at 17:54:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 16:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageOf what or whom?
news:mg0slfFkk9uU2@mid.individual.net...
I don't personally recall any instance where he has ever given a link to any
reputable
source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and the law. He
seems quite
content with the obvious certainty of whatever is in his own head." >>>>>>>>>>
Is any of what I said factually incorrect? If not, how can it be abusive?
How can anyone else possibly confirm what you yourself may, or not, >>>>>>>>> "personally recall" ?
Rather than your claim being "factually correct" you could well be suffering
from short term memory problems; countless other mental conditions; >>>>>>>>> or quite simply lying through your teeth.
So that in the circumstances, your claim is quite obviously abusive,. >>>>>>>>
Anyway, can you recall any instance where he has given a link to any >>>>>>>> reputable source for anything he's alleged, including dictionaries and >>>>>>>> the law?
You're always going to look even more stupid than usual when you make sweeping
statements that are easy to refute; only last week I cited Grainger and >>>>>>> Forstater on discrimination against people with philosophical beliefs. >>>>>>>
So now you're going to say: "Are but that was exceptional!", making you look
like a somewhat offensive moron. Oh well!
No, I'm not. I'm going to ask you to give a link to it, which once >>>>>> again you seem remarkably reluctant to do.
So, you accuse me of lying, then claim something else that I don't do that you
forgot to put in your sweeping statement. As I say, contemptible.
Eh? I asked you for a link, as I said you don't seem ever to give, and >>>> here you are once again doing exactly the same. I think you prove my
point for me.
Why do you want a link to a recent post of mine? Do you want to read it for >>> some reason? Are you doubting the truth of its existence?
Yes, actually. If you disagree, give the message id.
Is your request
merely an algorithmic response to my post? I'm really not interested.
I think you just can't support anything you say.
Prove me wrong. IF you can.
I really don't care.
If you can't or won't give a message id, how about providing a date and a time for your
message that 'only last week I cited Grainger and Forstater' so we can see whether you
are a liar or not?
Then you aren't particularly well qualified to comment at all, are you?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg1o7sFp7fiU2@mid.individual.net...
Then you aren't particularly well qualified to comment at all, are you?
But neither are you,
As your claim to post "frequently" in ULM and not "intermittently" as I suggest is a
blatant lie.
And so you're in no real position to make categorical statements about RH's postings which indeed can be elusive at times; possibly deliberately so
Are you on new medication or something ?
As you seem somehow different,.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg2v01FnstU4@mid.individual.net...
If you can't or won't give a message id, how about providing a date and a time for your
message that 'only last week I cited Grainger and Forstater' so we can see whether you
are a liar or not?
You of all people Norman, could be expected to know, that its the essence
of basic good manners, to not openly question other people's credibility, until you have concrete proof to the contrary.
In polite society, one simply doesn't go around demanding that other people "prove" the things they say.
That is for a Court of Law, or for Oiks
Otherwise, you slowly tease out contradictions.
You really do seem different Norman, since your return,
Now openly trolling as well, with seemingly no longer any regard for
your hard won reputation of dogged persistence built up over the years.
While seemingly your nemesis briefly returned as well. Only to equally suddenly return to the "nether regions"
Funny old world, eh Norman ?If you say so, Mr Bookcase.
On 13/08/2025 10:22, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg1o7sFp7fiU2@mid.individual.net...
Then you aren't particularly well qualified to comment at all, are you?
But neither are you,
Oh, I think I am, or at least better qualified than you. You see, you admitted earlier
that you 'don't read all of RH's posts nor the threads that he contributes to'. As
he's one of the most prolific of posters to ulm, if not the most prolific which he may
well be, that means you don't actually read much of the group at all, whereas I do.
As your claim to post "frequently" in ULM and not "intermittently" as I suggest is a
blatant lie.
In view of your admission above, how would you know? Do you have any evidence?
And so you're in no real position to make categorical statements about RH's >> postings which indeed can be elusive at times; possibly deliberately so
Not only 'elusive' but generally evasive, worthless and unsupported by anything other
than what is in his head and what he therefore regards as unassailable truth.
On 13/08/2025 10:22, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg2v01FnstU4@mid.individual.net...
If you can't or won't give a message id, how about providing a date and a time for
your
message that 'only last week I cited Grainger and Forstater' so we can see whether
you
are a liar or not?
You of all people Norman, could be expected to know, that its the essence
of basic good manners, to not openly question other people's credibility,
until you have concrete proof to the contrary.
I asked him to support his position, that's all. Nothing wrong with that in a
discussion forum, is there?
In polite society, one simply doesn't go around demanding that other people >> "prove" the things they say.
That is for a Court of Law, or for Oiks
I didn't 'demand' anything.
Otherwise, you slowly tease out contradictions.
And why not? It's all part of discussion and debate. It's a testing of positions.
You really do seem different Norman, since your return,
Now openly trolling as well, with seemingly no longer any regard for
your hard won reputation of dogged persistence built up over the years.
I think there's a failure of logic there. The two are not alternatives nor even
interdependent.
While seemingly your nemesis briefly returned as well. Only to equally
suddenly return to the "nether regions"
I think you've got whose nemesis is who rather the wrong way round there.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg388nF27fmU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/08/2025 10:22, billy bookcase wrote:
Otherwise, you slowly tease out contradictions.
And why not? It's all part of discussion and debate. It's a testing of positions.
You really do seem different Norman, since your return,
Now openly trolling as well, with seemingly no longer any regard for
your hard won reputation of dogged persistence built up over the years.
I think there's a failure of logic there. The two are not alternatives nor even
interdependent.
Aha. So you now admit that you are trolling.
Bingo !
While seemingly your nemesis briefly returned as well. Only to equally
suddenly return to the "nether regions"
I think you've got whose nemesis is who rather the wrong way round there.
Aha ! (Again) That's just reminded me that I read about the first Siamese Twins
in a book "The Ecyclopedia of Useless Information" complied by William Harston,
the other day and the fact that they each had numerous children; and pondering on the
practicaltiies; but while away from the computer. *
So that you are some use after all. Either individuailly or as a conjoined pair
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg37q4F27fmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 13/08/2025 10:22, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg1o7sFp7fiU2@mid.individual.net...
But neither are you,
Then you aren't particularly well qualified to comment at all, are you? >>>
Oh, I think I am, or at least better qualified than you. You see, you admitted earlier
that you 'don't read all of RH's posts nor the threads that he contributes to'. As
he's one of the most prolific of posters to ulm, if not the most prolific which he may
well be, that means you don't actually read much of the group at all, whereas I do.
As your claim to post "frequently" in ULM and not "intermittently" as I suggest is a
blatant lie.
In view of your admission above, how would you know? Do you have any evidence?
Oh dear
The fact that I don't read all of RH's posts in no way implies that I don't notice
yours. On those infrequent occasions when you do actually appear *
Usually to be followed by a month or so's "holiday".
And there is simply no point in denying it, Norman.
As I am only two keystrokes away from "Sort by Sender"; where all you posts are listed; along with the dates; recorded for posterity should I so choose.
And so you're in no real position to make categorical statements about RH's >>> postings which indeed can be elusive at times; possibly deliberately so
Not only 'elusive' but generally evasive, worthless and unsupported by anything other
than what is in his head and what he therefore regards as unassailable truth.
If its of any interet to you Norman, as indeed it should be, he does happen to have
mentioned the Dunning Kruger Effect, on more than one ocassion
I don't think there are many here or in ulm who would agree that I only post on
'infrequent occasions'. Or that that's a particularly relevant consideration anyway.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg44teF6qqgU3@mid.individual.net...
I don't think there are many here or in ulm who would agree that I only post on
'infrequent occasions'. Or that that's a particularly relevant consideration anyway.
Your absences were commented on around 18 months ago.
And by your greatest fan no less.
Recently you've been taking week long breaks.
While your greatest fan has only made fleeting appearances
Which anyone who is interested, can confirm for themselves.
On 13/08/2025 20:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg44teF6qqgU3@mid.individual.net...
I don't think there are many here or in ulm who would agree that I only post on
'infrequent occasions'. Or that that's a particularly relevant consideration anyway.
Your absences were commented on around 18 months ago.
And by your greatest fan no less.
Recently you've been taking week long breaks.
While your greatest fan has only made fleeting appearances
Which anyone who is interested, can confirm for themselves.
And they will ask, as I do, so what?
On 8/12/25 14:47, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/08/2025 14:07, Norman Wells wrote:
Is any of what I said factually incorrect?-a If not, how can it be
abusive?
If I say, "Norman Wells seems to be a fuckwit" is it factually
incorrect?-a If not, can it be abusive?
You may wish to reference Blake & Another v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB)
in your reply.
Similarly, you may wish to pay attention to the actual wording in the
moderation policy which states "offensive personal remarks about
another contributor will normally be rejected" as will posts that
"imply that another contributor who is likely to see the post is
stupid or dishonest, regardless of whether such observations contain
any truth".
Do you accept that a moderator may feel that you:
(a) made an offensive personal remark about another poster?
(b) implied that another contributor is stupid or dishonest?
I don't wish to defend Norman's post, his comment was too ambiguous, too vague.
On the wider point, the moderation policy is too all-encompassing. Many
self entitled people find any contradiction offensive. Many times, contradicting another contributor's stupid or dishonest arguments will intrinsically promote the idea that they are stupid or dishonest as a person.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mg44teF6qqgU3@mid.individual.net...
I don't think there are many here or in ulm who would agree that I only post on
'infrequent occasions'. Or that that's a particularly relevant consideration anyway.
Your absences were commented on around 18 months ago.
And by your greatest fan no less.
Recently you've been taking week long breaks.
While your greatest fan has only made fleeting appearances
On 13/08/2025 20:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mg44teF6qqgU3@mid.individual.net...
I don't think there are many here or in ulm who would agree that I only post on
'infrequent occasions'.-a Or that that's a particularly relevant consideration
anyway.
Your absences were commented on around 18 months ago.
And by your greatest fan no less.
It was observed, (and not by me I hasten to add), that Norman used to take a regular lengthy break from Usenet sometime in mid-late Winter. On occasion, during this time he might post from locations outside the UK.-a This led some to
conclude that perhaps Norman lived somewhere that required vacating for some period of the year, which he timed to coincide with a holiday abroad.
I make no comment on the accuracy of the observations or conclusions arising therefrom.
On 12/08/2025 15:05, Pancho wrote:
On 8/12/25 14:47, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/08/2025 14:07, Norman Wells wrote:
Is any of what I said factually incorrect?-a If not, how can it be
abusive?
If I say, "Norman Wells seems to be a fuckwit" is it factually
incorrect?-a If not, can it be abusive?
You may wish to reference Blake & Another v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB)
in your reply.
Similarly, you may wish to pay attention to the actual wording in the
moderation policy which states "offensive personal remarks about
another contributor will normally be rejected" as will posts that
"imply that another contributor who is likely to see the post is
stupid or dishonest, regardless of whether such observations contain
any truth".
Do you accept that a moderator may feel that you:
(a) made an offensive personal remark about another poster?
(b) implied that another contributor is stupid or dishonest?
I don't wish to defend Norman's post, his comment was too ambiguous, too
vague.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On the wider point, the moderation policy is too all-encompassing. Many
self entitled people find any contradiction offensive. Many times,
contradicting another contributor's stupid or dishonest arguments will
intrinsically promote the idea that they are stupid or dishonest as a
person.
Thereby leaving the moderators to exercise discretion and common sense
when moderating.
If you would like less discretion and what constitutes "common sense" >spelling out in detail in the moderation policy, I invite you to draft a >rewrite and sent it to the moderators for discussion.
Personally, if the majority of contributors (Ed: Not to be confused with
a vocal minority) are desirous of change, then I think the moderators
should facilitate that change. However, my understanding is that the >majority accept that the current situation is not perfect but it is
better than the alternatives which can be reasonably applied.
Regards
S.P.