Chapman's Day of Fame

On 16/01/2012 17:35, Judith wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

Please go away.
I neither know nor care about Mr Chapman, he may be some cyber-loon but
you come across as an obsessed stalker splashing resurrected tales about
arguements long forgotten to irrelevant Usenet groups.
The only thing I have discovered about Mr Chapman is that he has some,
possibly deranged, obsessive stalker reposting old arguements.

I don't think anybody here cares that much.

Andy

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:39:40 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Jan 16, 6:15*pm, Telegram Spam wrote:
On 16 jan, 19:05, Gloucestershire railway man

wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:35*pm, Judith wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

What has this to do with you?

Paul

Or us? Or cycling?

Or reality?


I an assure you Sunshine that it has everything to do with reality - as both
you and Chapman will find out :-)

And I am not seeing things through a drunken haze.

--
Mason is in denial - he is an alcoholic.
He claims that he drinks ten to twelve pints
a night and that it does him no harm.
He needs to seek help.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:42:10 +0000, AndyW wrote:

On 16/01/2012 17:35, Judith wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

Please go away.
I neither know nor care about Mr Chapman, he may be some cyber-loon but
you come across as an obsessed stalker splashing resurrected tales about
arguements long forgotten to irrelevant Usenet groups.
The only thing I have discovered about Mr Chapman is that he has some,
possibly deranged, obsessive stalker reposting old arguements.

I don't think anybody here cares that much.

Andy



Sorry sunshine - totally new and up to date.

Chapman was taking someone through the courts as a direct result of things
alleged to be said in uk.rec.cycling

Chapman is no longer taking that person through the courts.

If that is not relevant to both uk.rec.cycling and uk.legal - then you may feel
free to **** off.

If stalking is purely writing something in newsgroups - then yes I am stalking.

What would you name the process of having webpages about people and blogs about
them?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:35:37 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

Nope, I'm not at all worried, I just thought better of it. You should
try it some time.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

"AndyW" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2012 17:35, Judith wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry
about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in
public.

Please go away.
I neither know nor care about Mr Chapman, he may be some cyber-loon but
you come across as an obsessed stalker splashing resurrected tales about
arguements long forgotten to irrelevant Usenet groups.
The only thing I have discovered about Mr Chapman is that he has some,
possibly deranged, obsessive stalker reposting old arguements.

Mr Chapman is not the only one to have gone to the police over online
stalking and harassment.
I did the same last September.
--
Simon Mason

On Jan 16, 11:00*pm, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:30:06 GMT, "Periander" wrote:

On 16-Jan-2012, Judith wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about
some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in
public.

For ****s sake Judith he may well be a self deluded odious little toad but
don't you think there's better things you can be wasting your life on.

I was very ****ed off with his whole approach to the Norwich Pharmacal issue
and the fact that he was organising a ****-up on the strength of potentially
ruining someone's life.

I really wondered why he was doing it - other than for self-gratification

I understood that the person seeking the NP court order must have a genuine
intention of commencing proceedings; and that other means of obtaining evidence
must be exhausted before resorting to the Norwich Pharmacal.

I had my doubts if either of these were true and was surprised that the judge
did not query "all other means exhausted" - as they obviously weren't. *His
economy with the truth is renowned.

I wonder what the court would say if he has now withdrawn his police complaint
given that he told the judge that was why he wanted the information - to give
to the police. *Also - why has he withdrawn his complaint? ***** scared of
appearing in court and being questioned on oath I would wager.

Another possibility is that the police have slung it out as there is just no
case to answer; again - that would not surprise me either - we only had his
word for all he claimed - no sign of any evidence.

Do you really think anyone but you GAFF? If you have "evidence" take
it to the judge.

MBQ

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:16:26 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:35:37 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

Nope, I'm not at all worried, I just thought better of it. You should
try it some time.

For what it's worth, Guy, I am sure you have come to the right
decision.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:18:51 +0000, Beretie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:16:26 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:35:37 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Some time ago it became apparent that Chapman was beginning to worry about some
of the things which he done, and some of the things which he said in public.

Nope, I'm not at all worried, I just thought better of it. You should
try it some time.

For what it's worth, Guy, I am sure you have come to the right
decision.

Thank you, yes, I believe I have - several right decisions, in fact,
some at no small personal cost.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:16:33 +0000, Judith wrote:



sunshine -


Hagfish, the clade Myxini (also known as Hyperotreti), are eel-shaped
slime-producing marine animals (occasionally called slime eels).



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:10:55 +0000, Judith wrote:




Sunshine


They are the only living animals that have a skull but not a vertebral
column.


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.