From: Humbug on
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:53:54 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <1j9l99j.dq9yxq1xw6qvcN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
>Older Gentleman says...
>>
>> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <hebdq6$v3o$3(a)aioe.org>, lurker says...
>> > >
>> > > as above
>> >
>> > Why is it that you have an obsession with spacker?
>> >
>> > He's gone, hopefully forever.
>>
>> The other half of the Fracker entity is still posting the same shite,
>> though.
>
>Same as it ever was.
>
>> I wonder how proud it feels at having effectively killed what was a good
>> thriving and useful ng?
>
>Oi! Whilst it may take a while for the thriving to reappear, this NG is
>still very useful.

Exactly so.

I'm pleased to have been able to take you out of my killfile now that
you don't have a troll to incense your posts.

This NG will thrive once again with valuable posters who are not
driven off-topic by malicious interlopers.

I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
doesn't there?

The killfiule [1] is still a useful tool.

[1] I was going to correct that typo, but it works anyway :-)

--
Humbug
From: The Older Gentleman on
Humbug <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote:

> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
> doesn't there?

Oh, indeed. I see it played the racist card. Again....


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: petrolcan on
In article <8jtlg59b30hpm5l24hn1kj0hq1k95mgtgi(a)4ax.com>, Humbug says...
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:53:54 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1j9l99j.dq9yxq1xw6qvcN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
> >Older Gentleman says...
> >>
> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <hebdq6$v3o$3(a)aioe.org>, lurker says...
> >> > >
> >> > > as above
> >> >
> >> > Why is it that you have an obsession with spacker?
> >> >
> >> > He's gone, hopefully forever.
> >>
> >> The other half of the Fracker entity is still posting the same shite,
> >> though.
> >
> >Same as it ever was.
> >
> >> I wonder how proud it feels at having effectively killed what was a good
> >> thriving and useful ng?
> >
> >Oi! Whilst it may take a while for the thriving to reappear, this NG is
> >still very useful.
>
> Exactly so.
>
> I'm pleased to have been able to take you out of my killfile now that
> you don't have a troll to incense your posts.

Think about it, why exactly do you think I kept replying?

> This NG will thrive once again with valuable posters who are not
> driven off-topic by malicious interlopers.
>
> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
> doesn't there?

fran's time will come.

> The killfiule [1] is still a useful tool.
>
> [1] I was going to correct that typo, but it works anyway :-)

Heh.
From: petrolcan on
In article <1j9nl5n.1cu6j3z1vlr3vnN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
Older Gentleman says...
>
> lurker <graham423(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Older Gentleman wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > > Oh, is Lawnmower Man back again? Colour me surprised.
> >
> > Lawnmower Man and Spacman both cocked up big time revealing their
> > identities.
> >
> Well, Lawnmower Man was merely stupid enough to use an identity he'd
> used before. Spacker was special in that (as Parry pointed out) he not
> only put his postcode in the posting, but he invited all and sundry to
> look at it. :-)) That was truly classic.
>
> Didn't stop the other half of the Fracker entity from accusing everyone
> of organising a witch-hunt, of course..

I'm still in the planning stages ;-)
From: Humbug on
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:11:27 +0000, lurker <graham423(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:

>Rose wrote:
>
>> He's still selling rubbish on Ebay.
>
>Ya, he's been a busy bunny.
>
>> Is he allowed to run a business
>> from his council hovel? Does the dole know what he's doing?
>
>He's registered as a business seller so I guess that means he's legit?

It means that he has registered as a business seller with eBay.
That only has an effect upon his status with eBay.

Yes, he is allowed to run a business from his home, and can actaully
claim an allowance against tax for use of part of his home for the
business.

The council would only be concerned if the majority of the use of the
premises was for business rather than as a residence.

If he is claiming benefits, then yes, they would certainly be affected
by his income from eBay sales.

Similarly, he is liable for tax on the income from eBay sales.
He may be liable for registration for VAT if his turnover is high
enough.
That's very easy for eBay traders to miss!

>Surely his neighbours know he's running a business from home?

I doubt very much that his neighbours have any idea at all about what
he's doing.
They almost certainly don't know about his libellous activity on
usenet yet.

>> All those cuddly toys, do you reckon he has a lot of young visitors?
>> Anyone got a picture of him on the daily run to the post office?
>> Trouble is, a car with road tax parked on his street would stand out
>> like a sore thumb.

It's an end of terrace house in a middle class suburban area.
He's got three post offices less than a mile away.
Any vehicle parked on the street might be noticeable because the
residents have driveways and/or garages.

The swimming pool might be a draw for youngsters, but not at this time
of year, I expect :-)

>Someone did a video earlier on, but i doubt it has him in it, because he
>was hiding?

I have a very large number of videos in which he is not visible.
He must be very good at hiding!

Anyway ...

Edward Renner has perpetrated a considerable number of libels against
contributors to this newsgroup, myself included.

I would be prepared to contribute towards legal action against him,
provided that my contribution would be covered by the costs awarded
when he loses the case.

--
Humbug
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Is ebay being slow for you tonight?
Next: Problem with ebay?