From: Observer on

"The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1j6afyi.5szvdz11rrmzyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
> Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>
>> Another lie from Spack.
>
> It's getting to the stage where, with Spacker and Fran, the truthful
> posts are in the minority. Easier just to say: "Coo! Correct and
> truthful!". Takes up less bandwidth, anyway.
>
>

.. Fran never disagrees with a single word he says, no matter how untrue or
offensive. I think they'll finish up getting married they're so close - I'm
choosing my wedding suit as we speak.

Observer

From: Fran on

"Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
news:h92oed$duf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1j6afyi.5szvdz11rrmzyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>> Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>>
>>> Another lie from Spack.
>>
>> It's getting to the stage where, with Spacker and Fran, the truthful
>> posts are in the minority. Easier just to say: "Coo! Correct and
>> truthful!". Takes up less bandwidth, anyway.
>>
>>
>
> . Fran never disagrees with a single word he says, no matter how untrue or
> offensive.

You're quite wrong on that, but I don't suppose you'll get inconvenient
truth get in the way of an attack.


From: Observer on

"Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h92omt$g49$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
> news:h92oed$duf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1j6afyi.5szvdz11rrmzyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>>> Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another lie from Spack.
>>>
>>> It's getting to the stage where, with Spacker and Fran, the truthful
>>> posts are in the minority. Easier just to say: "Coo! Correct and
>>> truthful!". Takes up less bandwidth, anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> . Fran never disagrees with a single word he says, no matter how untrue
>> or offensive.
>
> You're quite wrong on that, but I don't suppose you'll get inconvenient
> truth get in the way of an attack.
It wasn't an attack - it was an observation. I'm beginning to wonder if
you're one and the same person?
I have heard you castigate a lot of people, but he seems to be on your
immune list.

Observer

From: Fran on

"Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
news:h92rdq$45a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:h92omt$g49$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
>> news:h92oed$duf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1j6afyi.5szvdz11rrmzyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another lie from Spack.
>>>>
>>>> It's getting to the stage where, with Spacker and Fran, the truthful
>>>> posts are in the minority. Easier just to say: "Coo! Correct and
>>>> truthful!". Takes up less bandwidth, anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> . Fran never disagrees with a single word he says, no matter how untrue
>>> or offensive.
>>
>> You're quite wrong on that, but I don't suppose you'll get inconvenient
>> truth get in the way of an attack.
> It wasn't an attack - it was an observation. I'm beginning to wonder if
> you're one and the same person?
> I have heard you castigate a lot of people, but he seems to be on your
> immune list.
>

Wrong. See previous post. Or do some research. You've an interesting
definition of "a lot".


From: Observer on

"Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h92rv3$881$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
> news:h92rdq$45a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:h92omt$g49$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Observer" <seeyoujimmy(a)nowt.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h92oed$duf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1j6afyi.5szvdz11rrmzyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>> Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another lie from Spack.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's getting to the stage where, with Spacker and Fran, the truthful
>>>>> posts are in the minority. Easier just to say: "Coo! Correct and
>>>>> truthful!". Takes up less bandwidth, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> . Fran never disagrees with a single word he says, no matter how untrue
>>>> or offensive.
>>>
>>> You're quite wrong on that, but I don't suppose you'll get inconvenient
>>> truth get in the way of an attack.
>> It wasn't an attack - it was an observation. I'm beginning to wonder if
>> you're one and the same person?
>> I have heard you castigate a lot of people, but he seems to be on your
>> immune list.
>>
>
> Wrong. See previous post. Or do some research. You've an interesting
> definition of "a lot".


Research shows that whilst 5 or 6, each castigated once, wouldn't
constitute a lot - doing it every time they post makes it feel as though it
is

Observer