On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 

> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
> >you.
>
> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.

Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.

Ian

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
 wrote:

>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>
>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>> >you.
>>
>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>
>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>

Well, he once spoke to an underwriter on the telephone - that's a bit
of hearsay evidence, isn't it?

Shite evidence, but still evidence...

-- 

Ian D

"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>
>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>> >you.
>>
>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>
> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>
He doesn't need evidence.
He just does what he is told: if an insurance company declines to pay out he 
just goes away.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:50:54 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>
>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>
>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>> >you.
>>>
>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>
>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>He doesn't need evidence.
>He just does what he is told: if an insurance company declines to pay out he 
>just goes away. 

Doesn't seem to work on Usenet, though.


-- 

Ian D

"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>
>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>> >you.
>>
>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>
> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>
I'm just watching an episode of Road Wars.  A driver claimed to be insured 
on his brothers trade policy.  The police called the company twice to check 
out his story.  Apparantly you have to be named on the trade policy or, in 
the case of a test drive, be accompanied by the policyholder.  He then 
claimed to have his own policy, but could provide no details of it.
The car was seized.  The Officer claimed that Thames Valley Police no longer 
issue producers.
It all seemed rather fair to me.

On 29 Sep, 20:47, Ian Dalziel  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

> >Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
> >produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>
> Well, he once spoke to an underwriter on the telephone - that's a bit
> of hearsay evidence, isn't it?
>
> Shite evidence, but still evidence...

I'm not counting that because, quite apart from the possiblity that
he's simply lying about it, he hasn't posted details of his policy or
certificate.

Nobody doubts that /some/ insurers insist that the "other" car be
insured, just as some insist that it be used in emergencies onoy and
some don't give the "other cars" cover at all.

It's Graz's claims that one - at least - of the restrictions will
always apply even when not specified in the policy which needs backed
up. Perhaps he did speak to an underwriter. Perhaps he was told that
the other car needed to be insured. But maybe his policy said that all
along, or he's misremembering (he has, as I recall, claimed that a car
needs to be insured to be "in roadworthy condition") ... or he's just
lying, with increasing desperation, to back up a claim whch he can't
substantiate.

Ian

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
 wrote:

>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>
>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>> >you.
>>
>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>
>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.

Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
contradict my claims.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:47:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>
>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>> >you.
>>>
>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>
>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>
>Well, he once spoke to an underwriter on the telephone - that's a bit
>of hearsay evidence, isn't it?
>
>Shite evidence, but still evidence...

You're talking bollzucks again (the "z" is slient).

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:02:38 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
 wrote:

>On 29 Sep, 20:47, Ian Dalziel  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>
>> >Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>> >produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>> Well, he once spoke to an underwriter on the telephone - that's a bit
>> of hearsay evidence, isn't it?
>>
>> Shite evidence, but still evidence...
>
>I'm not counting that because, quite apart from the possiblity that
>he's simply lying about it, he hasn't posted details of his policy or
>certificate.

I haven't had to use that provision under my current policy, therefore
it's irrelevant.

>Nobody doubts that /some/ insurers insist that the "other" car be
>insured, just as some insist that it be used in emergencies onoy and
>some don't give the "other cars" cover at all.

And disclosing that the "other car" isn't insured is "material".

>It's Graz's claims that one - at least - of the restrictions will
>always apply even when not specified in the policy which needs backed
>up. Perhaps he did speak to an underwriter. Perhaps he was told that
>the other car needed to be insured. But maybe his policy said that all
>along, or he's misremembering (he has, as I recall, claimed that a car
>needs to be insured to be "in roadworthy condition")

Not so.  Reread what I wrote.  

> ... or he's just
>lying, with increasing desperation, to back up a claim whch he can't
>substantiate.

Wrong, on every count, as usual.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:50:54 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>
>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>
>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>> >you.
>>>
>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>
>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>He doesn't need evidence.
>He just does what he is told: if an insurance company declines to pay out he 
>just goes away. 

Where did you get this piece of fiction from?  Out of your arse?
What I'm saying is that the average uneducated oik/chav will do
exactly that.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:55:12 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>
>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>
>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>> >you.
>>>
>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>
>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>I'm just watching an episode of Road Wars.  A driver claimed to be insured 
>on his brothers trade policy.  The police called the company twice to check 
>out his story.  Apparantly you have to be named on the trade policy or, in 
>the case of a test drive, be accompanied by the policyholder.  He then 
>claimed to have his own policy, but could provide no details of it.
>The car was seized.  The Officer claimed that Thames Valley Police no longer 
>issue producers.
>It all seemed rather fair to me. 

Is that all trade policies or just the one in question?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>
>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>> >you.
>>>
>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>
>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>
>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>contradict my claims.

Policy wordings? Premium details?

-- 

Ian D

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:48e1be89.75364734@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:50:54 +0100, "mert1639"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message
>>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>
>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>> >you.
>>>>
>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>
>>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>
>>He doesn't need evidence.
>>He just does what he is told: if an insurance company declines to pay out 
>>he
>>just goes away.
>
> Where did you get this piece of fiction from?  Out of your arse?
> What I'm saying is that the average uneducated oik/chav will do
> exactly that.
>
Yes well, there's not much that can be done about that is there?

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:48e1beb0.75404078@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:55:12 +0100, "mert1639"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message
>>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>
>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>> >you.
>>>>
>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>
>>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>
>>I'm just watching an episode of Road Wars.  A driver claimed to be insured
>>on his brothers trade policy.  The police called the company twice to 
>>check
>>out his story.  Apparantly you have to be named on the trade policy or, in
>>the case of a test drive, be accompanied by the policyholder.  He then
>>claimed to have his own policy, but could provide no details of it.
>>The car was seized.  The Officer claimed that Thames Valley Police no 
>>longer
>>issue producers.
>>It all seemed rather fair to me.
>
> Is that all trade policies or just the one in question?
>
I've no idea.
I suspect just the one in question as I know it is very common to test drive 
a car from a dealer without the policy holder being there.  Test drives, on 
new cars, can even be for several days.
Perhaps this was a cheapo policy.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:48:38 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:48e1be89.75364734@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:50:54 +0100, "mert1639"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message
>>>news:9079dd99-8fa9-4ed2-baaf-be3035b7d43c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>>
>>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>>> >you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>>
>>>> Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>> produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>>
>>>He doesn't need evidence.
>>>He just does what he is told: if an insurance company declines to pay out 
>>>he
>>>just goes away.
>>
>> Where did you get this piece of fiction from?  Out of your arse?
>> What I'm saying is that the average uneducated oik/chav will do
>> exactly that.
>>
>Yes well, there's not much that can be done about that is there? 

Education, education, education.   It may work, but it probably won't.
Peer pressure ensures that oiks and chavs remain thick.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:49 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>
>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>> >you.
>>>>
>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>
>>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>>contradict my claims.
>
>Policy wordings? Premium details?

Exactly.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:49 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>>
>>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>>> >you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>>
>>>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>
>>>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>>>contradict my claims.
>>
>>Policy wordings? Premium details?
>
>Exactly.

Both of which I have posted.
So you are "exactly" contradicted, as you say.
You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
evidence".

You are talking complete and utter shite, which has been demonstrated
several times - your only response is to change the subject or try a
quick ad hominem.

Admit you are wrong, admit you are trolling, or just plain fuck off.


-- 

Ian D

Graz wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>  wrote:

> >Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
> >produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>
> Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
> contradict my claims.

Did you know that your insurers will refuse to pay out if you crash
while wearing odd socks? o on, produce some evidence to prove me
wrong ...

Ian

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:10:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:49 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>>>
>>>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>>>> >you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>>>
>>>>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>>
>>>>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>>>>contradict my claims.
>>>
>>>Policy wordings? Premium details?
>>
>>Exactly.
>
>Both of which I have posted.

Where?  On your toilet wall?

>So you are "exactly" contradicted, as you say.

Nope.

>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>evidence".

Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).

>You are talking complete and utter shite, which has been demonstrated
>several times - your only response is to change the subject or try a
>quick ad hominem.

"Shite"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there?

>Admit you are wrong, admit you are trolling, or just plain fuck off.

"Fuck off"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there
too, you ignorant little cunt?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:26:36 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
 wrote:

>
>
>Graz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>  wrote:
>
>> >Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>> >produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>
>> Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>> contradict my claims.
>
>Did you know that your insurers will refuse to pay out if you crash
>while wearing odd socks? o on, produce some evidence to prove me
>wrong ...

I am not disputing your assertion.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>evidence".
>
>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).

What evidence have you produced, then? 
Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
I can't see them from here.

-- 

Ian D

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:10:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:49 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>>>>> >you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>>>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>>>>>contradict my claims.
>>>>
>>>>Policy wordings? Premium details?
>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>>Both of which I have posted.
>
>Where?  On your toilet wall?
>
>>So you are "exactly" contradicted, as you say.
>
>Nope.
>
>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>evidence".
>
>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>
>>You are talking complete and utter shite, which has been demonstrated
>>several times - your only response is to change the subject or try a
>>quick ad hominem.
>
>"Shite"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there?
>
>>Admit you are wrong, admit you are trolling, or just plain fuck off.
>
>"Fuck off"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there
>too, you ignorant little cunt?

ROFL. You don't even know what "ad hominem" means, do you?

Do you know how to work Google? If not, ring up an underwriter and
ask...

-- 

Ian D

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:54:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>evidence".
>>
>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>
>What evidence have you produced, then? 
>Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
>I can't see them from here.

What evidence have *you* produced, then?  A claim to be married to an
underwriter doesn't count.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:56:55 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:10:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:18 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:49 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:43 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 29 Sep, 06:25, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:21 +0100, "Mike G" 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >No. I'm just completely bored with your self righteous attitude,
>>>>>>>> >and therefore there's no point in me continuing to argue with
>>>>>>>> >you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially as you have failed to prove your point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Graz, old boy, that's a little bit rich, considering that you haven't
>>>>>>>produced a single word of evidence to back up your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doc, old boy, nobody has produced a single word of evidence to
>>>>>>contradict my claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>Policy wordings? Premium details?
>>>>
>>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>Both of which I have posted.
>>
>>Where?  On your toilet wall?
>>
>>>So you are "exactly" contradicted, as you say.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>evidence".
>>
>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>>
>>>You are talking complete and utter shite, which has been demonstrated
>>>several times - your only response is to change the subject or try a
>>>quick ad hominem.
>>
>>"Shite"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there?
>>
>>>Admit you are wrong, admit you are trolling, or just plain fuck off.
>>
>>"Fuck off"..."ad hominem".  Do you see the self-contradiction there
>>too, you ignorant little cunt?
>
>ROFL. You don't even know what "ad hominem" means, do you?

I certainly do, shithead.  

>Do you know how to work Google? If not, ring up an underwriter and
>ask...
 
Do you realise how hypocritical you come across?

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:20:37 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:54:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>>evidence".
>>>
>>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>>
>>What evidence have you produced, then? 
>>Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
>>I can't see them from here.
>
>What evidence have *you* produced, then?  A claim to be married to an
>underwriter doesn't count.

Details of my policy wording and my premiums, as I said.


-- 

Ian D

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:05:14 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:20:37 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:54:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>>>evidence".
>>>>
>>>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>>>
>>>What evidence have you produced, then? 
>>>Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
>>>I can't see them from here.
>>
>>What evidence have *you* produced, then?  A claim to be married to an
>>underwriter doesn't count.
>
>Details of my policy wording and my premiums, as I said.

Where have you produced it?  Certainly not here.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:45:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:05:14 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:20:37 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:54:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>>>>evidence".
>>>>>
>>>>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>>>>
>>>>What evidence have you produced, then? 
>>>>Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
>>>>I can't see them from here.
>>>
>>>What evidence have *you* produced, then?  A claim to be married to an
>>>underwriter doesn't count.
>>
>>Details of my policy wording and my premiums, as I said.
>
>Where have you produced it?  Certainly not here.

Short-term memory loss as well as difficulty with comprehension, then.

-- 

Ian D

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:41:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:45:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:05:14 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:20:37 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:54:24 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:45:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You, on the other hand certainly have not produced "a single word of
>>>>>>>evidence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bollzocks (again, the "z" is silent).
>>>>>
>>>>>What evidence have you produced, then? 
>>>>>Of relevance, that is - you may well have produced your bollocks, but
>>>>>I can't see them from here.
>>>>
>>>>What evidence have *you* produced, then?  A claim to be married to an
>>>>underwriter doesn't count.
>>>
>>>Details of my policy wording and my premiums, as I said.
>>
>>Where have you produced it?  Certainly not here.
>
>Short-term memory loss as well as difficulty with comprehension, then.

Can't recall where you produced it?  No surprise there.  Perhaps you
never did.