In message , Jon 
O'Brien  writes

>However, it's just occurred to me that Follett may have the same idea and
>that could be why he keeps insisting, despite proof to the contrary, that
>he doesn't 'do' personal insults.

What 'proof to the contrary'? There's no such thing so please cease and 
desist from uttering this squalid fabrication.

-- 
James Follett. "It is better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty sometimes sleeps, his cupidity
sometimes satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C S Lewis

In article ,
james@marage.demon.co.uk (james) wrote:

> What 'proof to the contrary'? There's no such thing so please cease 
> and desist from uttering this squalid fabrication.

You were given several chances to deny that the post replicated below was
your work and you didn't do so. Are you now claiming that it isn't?

----------------------------8<-------------------------------------

It wouldn't be so bad if you had something interesting to say or
possessed a modicum of intelligence as the means of saying it, but that
would be asking for silk from a sow's ear. You're an intellectual pygmy
trying desperately to ride on the shoulders of giants and reduced to
stretching what minuscule intellectual abilities you have by making
puerile one line responses to other equally brain dead morons, and
duplicating huge dollops of repetitious material in the pious hope that
it'll act as a smokescreen aimed at hiding from others what a dismal
little born-to-be-loser wretch you are -- condemned to a miserable,
pointless life of being a disregarded, drifting nonentity because you
have neither the wit or the ability to be anything else other than an
oily little streak of congealing pus within the confines of the Usenet.
It's the only thing you do well; the only thing you can do well.

Over the past few days, you and your equally feckless chums have been
making snide and wholly unwarranted asides about Neil Barker and Craig
Oldfield. I've crossed swords with them many times and have often
expressed disapproval of their bullying tactics, and doubtless will do so
in the future. But there's an honesty and integrity about their arguments
that you, the probable product of a furtive, clandestine coupling between
a drunken slut with semen-caked legs and a meths- reeking tramp in a
vomit-splattered alleyway beside a dock land pub on a Saturday night,
could never hope to equal.

Your monstrous abortion of a signature, that you parade around like a
proud dung beetle in possession of a particularly large dollop of sun-
bleached camel shit, is indicative of your shallow-minded thinking.
You've larded it with phrases from people who achieved something and you
hope that such quotations will somehow impart a second hand gloss to your
first hand lustreless, insignificance. And, of course, being totally
devoid of any intuitive critical facilities, you underline your failings
and your deep sense of shame at being a failure by starting it with:

"The critically acclaimed Eddie Bernard..."

A sad opening that says so much about you. It doesn't work as litotes or
even irony. What it does say loud and clear is what an arrogant little
shit you are -- something I didn't include in the bleak catalogue of your
supposed skills because being born a little shit is not a talent but a
condition that you've made no attempt to rise above.

While on the subject of your signature, what critic has acclaimed you? Or
is that an essential part of your pathetic self-delusion? The Big Lie
that enables you to drag your miserable, zero-achieving, pointless, Petri
dish smear of a life from one zero-achieving, pointless day to the next?

----------------------------8<-------------------------------------

Jon.

In article , Jon 
O'Brien  writes
>In article ,
>james@marage.demon.co.uk (james) wrote:
>
>> What 'proof to the contrary'? There's no such thing so please cease
>> and desist from uttering this squalid fabrication.
>
>You were given several chances to deny that the post replicated below was
>your work and you didn't do so. Are you now claiming that it isn't?



How about the two of you RFDing and creating 
'uk.culture.pointlessarguments' and leaving uk.local.surrey for its 
intended purpose,

"The group will be for the discussion of subjects relating to the county 
of Surrey. The group can also be used to request information relating to 
Surrey and for past residents to reminisce about the county in past 
years. "

or at least for civilised discussion?

Or you could simply take the dispute to email?



-- 
Peter