First week

On Jan 17, 5:44*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, dr6092 wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote:

You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the
value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as
well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they
er... wouldn't.

Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet?

Planet Nugent is a mirror image of the real world where cars can beat
bicycles on city commutes.
I am glad I don't have to read the tedious toad's tripe anymore -
killfiles have put paid to him.

--

As they have also done to JMS, Bodge Job and Benn.
Nuxx and Cheerless are no more.


--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:44:50 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Jan 17, 5:44*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, dr6092 wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote:

You are surely wrong. "Most people" see more than that depreciate off the
value of their car every year. Flat screen TVs must be depreciating fast as
well (though not by £1,000 pa). They can afford it. If they couldn't, they
er... wouldn't.

Not so much now. You never heard of the credit crunch on your planet?

Planet Nugent is a mirror image of the real world where cars can beat
bicycles on city commutes.
I am glad I don't have to read the tedious toad's tripe anymore -
killfiles have put paid to him.

--

As they have also done to JMS, Bodge Job and Benn.
Nuxx and Cheerless are no more.
--

Have you noticed how some ******s actually need to tell someone when they have been put in the kill-file?
But then of course - the really serious ******s have to remind people periodically; particularly when they have let
something slip which shows that they do actually read the "kill-filed" poster.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:33:24 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 18 jan, 14:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:35*pm, Justin wrote:



I will show that your "evidence" supporting my having posted as JM
Messie is far from compelling. I invite you, once again support your
incorrect allegation.

I think you will be waiting a long time, JMS always wriggles like a
worm when caught out.

--
Simon Mason

That does seem to be accurate


Why not tell us what names you admit to using - and I will tell you those you
have missed out.

Are you saying that you have never posted using the names I have provided?

Or do you not want to answer as you will be lying again.

On 18 jan, 16:20, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:33:24 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:









On 18 jan, 14:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:35*pm, Justin wrote:

I will show that your "evidence" supporting my having posted as JM
Messie is far from compelling. I invite you, once again support your
incorrect allegation.

I think you will be waiting a long time, JMS always wriggles like a
worm when caught out.

--
Simon Mason

That does seem to be accurate

Why not tell us what names you admit to using - and I will tell you those you
have missed out.

Are you saying that you have never posted using the names I have provided?

Or do you not want to answer as you will be lying again.

You can save your time and not ask this sort of question. You allege
that I have been posting as JM Messie. I invited and invite you to
back up this incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so.
It is a perversion of any form of debate or logic to consider an
assertion as correct by dint of its having been made. It is an even
greater perversion to then place the onus upon disproving that
assertion rather than proving it.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:06:12 +0000, wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:07:23 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 18 jan, 16:20, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:33:24 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:









On 18 jan, 14:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:35*pm, Justin wrote:

I will show that your "evidence" supporting my having posted as JM
Messie is far from compelling. I invite you, once again support your
incorrect allegation.

I think you will be waiting a long time, JMS always wriggles like a
worm when caught out.

--
Simon Mason

That does seem to be accurate

Why not tell us what names you admit to using - and I will tell you those you
have missed out.

Are you saying that you have never posted using the names I have provided?

Or do you not want to answer as you will be lying again.

You can save your time and not ask this sort of question. You allege
that I have been posting as JM Messie. I invited and invite you to
back up this incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so.
It is a perversion of any form of debate or logic to consider an
assertion as correct by dint of its having been made. It is an even
greater perversion to then place the onus upon disproving that
assertion rather than proving it.



At last - the wriggle has brought out the truth - I see that you are now
differentiating between J.M. Messie and her address of


Doesn't wash sunshine - you have clearly posted using all the various names I
have accused you of.

And you have been caught out.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:02:52 +0000, Judith wrote:



sunshine


A hagfish will actually "sneeze" when its own nostrils fill with slime.

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:16:28 +0000, Judith wrote:

--

******s

Hagfish slime is different that any other natural slime secretion in that
it is reinforced with tiny fibers.


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

On Jan 18, 4:07*pm, Justin wrote:


You can save your time and not ask this sort of question. You allege
that I have been posting as JM Messie. I invited and invite you to
back up this incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so.
It is a perversion of any form of debate or logic to consider an
assertion as correct by dint of its having been made. It is an even
greater perversion to then place the onus upon disproving that
assertion rather than proving it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FFS.
Is JMS *still* wriggliing?
It seriously needs some sort of medical help - it is a total wacko
nutcase.

--
Simon Mason

On 18 jan, 23:02, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:06:12 +0000, *wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:07:23 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 18 jan, 16:20, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:33:24 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 18 jan, 14:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:35*pm, Justin wrote:

I will show that your "evidence" supporting my having posted as JM
Messie is far from compelling. I invite you, once again support your
incorrect allegation.

I think you will be waiting a long time, JMS always wriggles like a
worm when caught out.

--
Simon Mason

That does seem to be accurate

Why not tell us what names you admit to using - and I will tell you those you
have missed out.

Are you saying that you have never posted using the names I have provided?

Or do you not want to answer as you will be lying again.

You can save your time and not ask this sort of question. You allege
that I have been posting as JM Messie. I invited and invite you to
back up this incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so.
It is a perversion of any form of debate or logic to consider an
assertion as correct by dint of its having been made. It is an even
greater perversion to then place the onus upon disproving that
assertion rather than proving it.

At last - the wriggle has brought out the truth - I see that you are now
differentiating between J.M. Messie and her address of



You allege that I have been posting as JM Messie (J.M.Messie
) . I invited and invite you to back up this
incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so. It is a perversion of
any form of debate or logic to consider an assertion as correct by
dint of its having been made. It is an even greater perversion to then
place the onus upon disproving that assertion rather than proving it.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:02:17 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

snip



You allege that I have been posting as JM Messie (J.M.Messie
) . I invited and invite you to back up this
incorrect assertion. You have failed to do so. It is a perversion of
any form of debate or logic to consider an assertion as correct by
dint of its having been made. It is an even greater perversion to then
place the onus upon disproving that assertion rather than proving it.



You are wriggling : JM Messie's email address is ) -
you have posted using that address - therefore you have posted as JM Messie.

Have you posted using JM Messie's email address of ?
- a straight yes or a no will suffice.

Not difficult that is it?

Feel free to deny it - or just ****-off; you have shown that you are a ****wit
already.

This is the Porky Chapman method - try and be smart when "denying" something.
Some will believe you - but others will smell the rat - or is it a piglet?