On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:51:37 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:cvb9ikdcrt95u95qguolqljno6k91nn1st@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 16:39:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
While lockdown may well have been seen by some as a practical necessity >>>>to save lives, by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms. >>>>Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person chooses to >>>>put themselves and their families in danger or not.
Personal choice to put themselves in danger, fine - but why should
they have the personal choice to put their families in danger?
Here is just the person to ask.*
quote:
1990: Gummer enlists daughter in BSE fight
The government has again attempted to reassure the public that British
beef is safe, despite growing fears over the cattle disease, Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE).
The Minister of Agriculture, John Gummer, even invited newspapers and camera >>crews to photograph him trying to feed a beefburger to his four-year-old daughter,
Cordelia, at an event in his Suffolk constituency.
:unquote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2913000/2913807.stm
What some people regard as danger, or risk, others choose to regard as "scaremongering"
by the "Nanny State"
Or why not ask any of the thousands of MMR refuseniks ?
Who in order to demonstrate their commitment to their cause, refuse to have >>their own children vaccinated ?
And who like all anti vaxxers, put not only their own families, but everyone >>else in danger.
I was challenging *your* statement that "it's a matter of personal
choice as to whether a person chooses to put themselves and their
families in danger or not."
Unless you are placing yourself with the MMR refuseniks and
anti-vaxxers?
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
On 2025-11-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
No, it was rejected as "abusive or hurtful to another contributor".
You could re-post the first half if you wish, omitting the second half
which contained nothing but abuse.
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability >>>of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally
fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ;
and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers.
Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny
everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never
happened.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability >>>>of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally
fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers.
Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny
everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never
happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth
manic.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability >>>>>of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers.
Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never
happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth
manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability >>>>>>of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides
of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>>>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>>>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth
manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not
what you meant.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>>>>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability >>>>>>>of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>>>>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you
should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth
manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not
what you meant.
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person
chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
What made you assume that I necessarily agreed with "the others" ?
I wasn't agreeing with either side; just stating their respective
positions.
Howver, if you wish to chacterise this as "frothing at the mouth", then
so be it, I suppose.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>>>>>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education; >>>>>>>>rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>>
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth
manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not
what you meant.
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person
chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:g7vgikllav6eric3s7hmtu6efv8gdb5lkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ; >>>>>>>and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education;
rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>>>
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point
trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth >>>>>> manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not
what you meant.
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person
chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
What two separate statements ?
There is only one statement consisting of two sentences.
The second of which starting "Where it's a matter of
personal choice" could in this context, only ever be seen
as applying to the "attack on basic basic freedoms"
which was cited in the first sentence, as being held
"by others".
A statement is an expression of a fact or an opinion which
stands complete in itself. And independant of anything
else.
So what two separate statements are you claiming are contained
in the above quote ?
Just in the interests of clarity.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:41:15 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:g7vgikllav6eric3s7hmtu6efv8gdb5lkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ;
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory.
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education;
rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>>>>
and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point >>>>>>> trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth >>>>>>> manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not
what you meant.
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person
chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
What two separate statements ?
There is only one statement consisting of two sentences.
The second of which starting "Where it's a matter of
personal choice" could in this context, only ever be seen
as applying to the "attack on basic basic freedoms"
which was cited in the first sentence, as being held
"by others".
A statement is an expression of a fact or an opinion which
stands complete in itself. And independant of anything
else.
So what two separate statements are you claiming are contained
in the above quote ?
Just in the interests of clarity.
Having recognised that there is no point trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth manic, I have no intention of engaging in a semantics argument
with one, especially one who
considers my Catholic education to be somewhat inferior, to put it
mildly.
You accused me elsewhere of being bitter and "eaten away with
resentment";
you seem to spend a rather large portion of your time in
that state about one thing or another.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:24liikpbrtcrh3dbfjpgkv73lguir2f19g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:41:15 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:g7vgikllav6eric3s7hmtu6efv8gdb5lkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ;
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory. >>>>>>>>>>>
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education;
rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>>>>>
and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point >>>>>>>> trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth >>>>>>>> manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ?
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not >>>>>> what you meant.
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person
chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
What two separate statements ?
There is only one statement consisting of two sentences.
The second of which starting "Where it's a matter of
personal choice" could in this context, only ever be seen
as applying to the "attack on basic basic freedoms"
which was cited in the first sentence, as being held
"by others".
A statement is an expression of a fact or an opinion which
stands complete in itself. And independant of anything
else.
So what two separate statements are you claiming are contained
in the above quote ?
Just in the interests of clarity.
Having recognised that there is no point trying to have a reasonable
discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth manic, I have no intention of
engaging in a semantics argument
Ah right ! So it's a "semantic argument" now, is it ?
You made a statement, in English, which according to any definition
in use ever since the very inception of the English Language, is
demonstrably and manifestly wrong. Or to use one of my own pet
criteria, it could not possibly be more wrong; at least while
remaining intelligible.
And so realising that once again you've been caught out, that you were
wrong, rather than admit that you've made a simple mistake, as could
anyone, you try to pretend its all a matter of "semantics".
And all because you're seemingly psychologically incapable of ever
admitting you've made a mistake. The biggest mistake of all
But you know its not really a matter of semantics, don't you ?
In your heart of heart you know the truth. As does God of course;
as God sees everything.
So here you are, a self proclaimed representative of the Roman Catholic >Church, "His Church" *openly debasing yourself* on a public forum by
telling what you know are "outright lies"; simply not so as to
lose a trivial Usenet argument.
with one, especially one who
considers my Catholic education to be somewhat inferior, to put it
mildly.
Don't get carried away. It can't all be put down to an inferior
education. As I doubt for one, that they taught you to tell outright
lies; least not over such trivial matters as this.
You accused me elsewhere of being bitter and "eaten away with
resentment";
You were the one who first mentioned "resentment", not me.
And given the way that you raise these seething resentments of yours,
every single time that Todals's name is mentioned, its fair to day
that you're clearly eaten away with them. You're obsessed.
you seem to spend a rather large portion of your time in
that state about one thing or another.
Such as ?
Or will your failure to produce any actual examples, all come down to
a matter of "semantics" too ?
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 10:25:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:24liikpbrtcrh3dbfjpgkv73lguir2f19g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:41:15 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:g7vgikllav6eric3s7hmtu6efv8gdb5lkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not >>>>>>> what you meant.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ;
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education;
rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it. >>>>>>>>>>
and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point >>>>>>>>> trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth >>>>>>>>> manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ? >>>>>>>
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person >>>>>>chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
What two separate statements ?
There is only one statement consisting of two sentences.
The second of which starting "Where it's a matter of
personal choice" could in this context, only ever be seen
as applying to the "attack on basic basic freedoms"
which was cited in the first sentence, as being held
"by others".
A statement is an expression of a fact or an opinion which
stands complete in itself. And independant of anything
else.
So what two separate statements are you claiming are contained
in the above quote ?
Just in the interests of clarity.
Having recognised that there is no point trying to have a reasonable
discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth manic, I have no intention of
engaging in a semantics argument
Ah right ! So it's a "semantic argument" now, is it ?
You made a statement, in English, which according to any definition
in use ever since the very inception of the English Language, is >>demonstrably and manifestly wrong. Or to use one of my own pet
criteria, it could not possibly be more wrong; at least while
remaining intelligible.
And so realising that once again you've been caught out, that you were >>wrong, rather than admit that you've made a simple mistake, as could >>anyone, you try to pretend its all a matter of "semantics".
And all because you're seemingly psychologically incapable of ever >>admitting you've made a mistake. The biggest mistake of all
But you know its not really a matter of semantics, don't you ?
In your heart of heart you know the truth. As does God of course;
as God sees everything.
So here you are, a self proclaimed representative of the Roman Catholic >>Church, "His Church" *openly debasing yourself* on a public forum by >>telling what you know are "outright lies"; simply not so as to
lose a trivial Usenet argument.
with one, especially one who
considers my Catholic education to be somewhat inferior, to put it
mildly.
Don't get carried away. It can't all be put down to an inferior
education. As I doubt for one, that they taught you to tell outright
lies; least not over such trivial matters as this.
You accused me elsewhere of being bitter and "eaten away with
resentment";
You were the one who first mentioned "resentment", not me.
And given the way that you raise these seething resentments of yours,
every single time that Todals's name is mentioned, its fair to day
that you're clearly eaten away with them. You're obsessed.
you seem to spend a rather large portion of your time in
that state about one thing or another.
Such as ?
Or will your failure to produce any actual examples, all come down to
a matter of "semantics" too ?
As I suggested before, you really should seek professional help with
your mania.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:b47jiktlvka0thjjflhd4ssvide74p5m3i@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 10:25:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:24liikpbrtcrh3dbfjpgkv73lguir2f19g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 20:41:15 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:g7vgikllav6eric3s7hmtu6efv8gdb5lkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:45 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:0ghgik9021ej8ovgdb7ca8a5s9cud194tj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:40:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I replied to a comment you made; you claim that what I read is not >>>>>>>> what you meant.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:3k2fikl267o9thv7b7q5hvd16jgunv2fnj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:24:53 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>news:o17eik9tb3hbjnc3kio5sliqk4hiolv71f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:14:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
This post was rejected on the basis that it is defamatory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is rather ironic. Given that I was ascribing the seeming inability
of neither Martin Harran not JNugent to ever consider both sides >>>>>>>>>>>>>of any argument, to the pernicious effects of their Catholic Education;
rather than to any latent stupidity on their part.
Your mania concerning the Catholic Church is very unhealthy; you >>>>>>>>>>>> should really see if you can get professional help to deal with it.
I notice you've foregone the opportunity to retract tne totally >>>>>>>>>>>fictitious claim you made, falsely accusing me of making a "statement" ;
and thereby associating myself with MMR refusiniks and anti-vaxxers. >>>>>>>>>>>Let alone offering any sort of an apology.
But then that's par for the course for you lot, isn't it ? Deny >>>>>>>>>>>everything, brush it all under the carpet, and pretend it never >>>>>>>>>>>happened.
Nah, just that I've learned over the years that there is no point >>>>>>>>>> trying to have a reasonable discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth >>>>>>>>>> manic.
So I can take it, that you're not going to be apologising then ? >>>>>>>>
Here's what I actually posted
quote:
by others it could be seen as an attack on basic freedoms.
Where it's a matter of personal choice as to whether a person >>>>>>>chooses to put themselves and their families in danger or not.
:unquote
Written as two separate statements, hence the lack of clarity.
What two separate statements ?
There is only one statement consisting of two sentences.
The second of which starting "Where it's a matter of
personal choice" could in this context, only ever be seen
as applying to the "attack on basic basic freedoms"
which was cited in the first sentence, as being held
"by others".
A statement is an expression of a fact or an opinion which
stands complete in itself. And independant of anything
else.
So what two separate statements are you claiming are contained
in the above quote ?
Just in the interests of clarity.
Having recognised that there is no point trying to have a reasonable
discussion with a frothing-at-the-mouth manic, I have no intention of
engaging in a semantics argument
Ah right ! So it's a "semantic argument" now, is it ?
You made a statement, in English, which according to any definition
in use ever since the very inception of the English Language, is >>>demonstrably and manifestly wrong. Or to use one of my own pet
criteria, it could not possibly be more wrong; at least while
remaining intelligible.
And so realising that once again you've been caught out, that you were >>>wrong, rather than admit that you've made a simple mistake, as could >>>anyone, you try to pretend its all a matter of "semantics".
And all because you're seemingly psychologically incapable of ever >>>admitting you've made a mistake. The biggest mistake of all
But you know its not really a matter of semantics, don't you ?
In your heart of heart you know the truth. As does God of course;
as God sees everything.
So here you are, a self proclaimed representative of the Roman Catholic >>>Church, "His Church" *openly debasing yourself* on a public forum by >>>telling what you know are "outright lies"; simply not so as to
lose a trivial Usenet argument.
with one, especially one who
considers my Catholic education to be somewhat inferior, to put it
mildly.
Don't get carried away. It can't all be put down to an inferior >>>education. As I doubt for one, that they taught you to tell outright >>>lies; least not over such trivial matters as this.
You accused me elsewhere of being bitter and "eaten away with
resentment";
You were the one who first mentioned "resentment", not me.
And given the way that you raise these seething resentments of yours, >>>every single time that Todals's name is mentioned, its fair to day
that you're clearly eaten away with them. You're obsessed.
you seem to spend a rather large portion of your time in
that state about one thing or another.
Such as ?
Or will your failure to produce any actual examples, all come down to
a matter of "semantics" too ?
As I suggested before, you really should seek professional help with
your mania.
And maybe it's time you simply stopped lying, if only to yourself ;
and stopped throwing these silly insults around.
You were the one who proclaimed you were a Catholic; doubtless hoping
for some reason, that people would fall at your feet.
Then when that didn't happen, you got all upset and started with the
lying and the insults.
Which simply shows you to be a deeply unpleasant person; totally lacking
in any sense of humility or basic human decency whatsoever.
I pity you; I really do.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:22:39 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,175 |
| Posted today: | 1 |