..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.............

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Return to Forum Index

Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 14 2003 at 10:21 PM

bogush (Login bogush)
Forum Owner
from IP address 81.79.175.42

Copied here from a dozen or so other threads to make it easier for people to enjoy their contribution to the debate (amazing what you can do with a Ph.D.):

Smoke-driving to be outlawed.

Re: Smoke-driving to be outlawed. December 14 2003, 6:25 PM

Response to interesting post December 14 2003, 8:05 PM

Mark My Words, He Won't Be Able To Turn Over A New Leif - Anon

A just response December 14 2003, 8:07 PM

Speed Kills? Except In Germany! - Kill Your Speed, Not A Child, Except In The USA

Hello December 14 2003, 8:08 PM

Further complaints against Bogush

Response December 14 2003, 8:09 PM

Religious (In)Tolerance

Re: Religious (In)Tolerance December 14 2003, 8:18 PM

Where Did The Fines, And The Speeding Drivers Go

Re: Where Did The Fines, And The Speeding Drivers Go December 14 2003, 8:48 PM

Back Room Bias, Or Just Infiltration?

Response December 14 2003, 8:50 PM

Speed humps under fire for delays

Re: Speed humps under fire for delays December 14 2003, 8:55 PM

Speed humps and cameras cause loss of dignity

Re: Speed humps and cameras cause loss of dignity December 14 2003, 9:55 PM

New scams help

This site is garbage December 14 2003, 8:14 PM

Bogush is a prat

See how you like your own medicine December 14 2003, 9:56 PM

Re: Smoke-driving to be outlawed. December 14 2003, 6:25 PM

Author

Reply

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 14 2003, 10:24 PM

Perhaps Bogush is a junior school kid. We used to cut & paste a lot in those days.

Jack Russell
(no login)
195.92.67.67

Response

December 14 2003, 10:34 PM

Anazing you can do with a bus driver's licence. Not a lot basically.

Ding ding, all aboard, ding ding.

Jack Russell
(no login)
195.92.67.67

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 14 2003, 10:36 PM

Yes, maybe he is a little kid. A Bogus Man. Yes, it fits.

Mmmmm. Or Bogey Man. Mmmmm. Yes it fits too.

Nah. He's a spotty 15 year old juvenile. Just look at the complete dross he writes.

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 14 2003, 10:59 PM

I think you're being very unfair Jack......To spotty 15 year olds.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.175.42

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

December 14 2003, 11:28 PM

Here's one of his shorter cointributions to the debate:

I've reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with Bogush. Wait! Before you dismiss me as belligerent, hear me out. His communications have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. In purely political terms, he is doing the very thing for which he criticizes others. To top that off, he wants us to believe that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. How stupid does he think we are? I know very few incompetent drug lords personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that every time Bogush tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to waste taxpayers' money. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

Any rational argument must acknowledge this. His obstreperous impertinent litanies, naturally, do not. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a opeless task. I tried to convince Bogush that it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for him to imply that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. As I expected, Bogush was thoroughly unconvinced.

Before I continue, let me state that if he is going to push our efforts two steps backward, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, this is a classic example of a zero-sum game. And second, my love for people necessitates that I build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. Yes, I face opposition from Bogush. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to gag free speech? Total chaos. Bogush has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost
all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to inculcate misguided magic-bullet explanations. He frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims.

Bogush will get on my nerves long before he can convert me into one of his cronies. Because "calcareoargillaceous" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that he is -- and I say this with no intended disrespect -- libidinous. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that his lackeys give him credit for things he hasn't done? The answer is that he likes to imply that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. This is what his prank phone calls amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of antihumanist drivel devised by his henchmen and mindlessly multiplied by vengeful neo-pouty-types. I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to comment on Bogush's scribblings. Of course, if Bogush's assistants had even an ounce of integrity, they would reveal some shocking facts about Bogush's
recommendations.

In contrast, favoritism appears to have triumphed -- and Bogush knows it. Unprincipled swaggerers can go right ahead and convict me for saying that a day without Bogush would be like a day without mean-spirited gruesome colonialism, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting me of all guilt and blame. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to give parents the means to protect their children. You've never heard him announce that he plans to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold? Well, Bogush has repeatedly enunciated such a plan, but in his typically convoluted way. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because you can chalk up incidents such as the ones I've described to the disloyal nature of Bogush's half-measures.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.175.42

And One Of His Longer Ones:

December 14 2003, 11:47 PM

Re: My complaint Against Bogush

December 14 2003, 11:02 PM

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.175.42

By the Way

December 14 2003, 11:56 PM

That appears to be the initial post in its original thread repeated several times:

My complaint Against Bogush

My complaint Against Bogush
December 13 2003 at 10:09 PM Orville (no login)

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Bogush's imprecations are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. You see, I truly believe that Bogush should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Bogush's prurient modes of thought, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve.) Him claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Bogush doesn't want equal time. Bogush doesn't want pluralism. Bogush just wants to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. He seems utterly incapable of understanding that it's really
not bloody-mindedness that compels me to carve solutions that are neither sinister nor short-sighted. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. When I first heard about him announcements, I didn't know whether to laugh, because him anecdotes are so xenophobic, or cry, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for the worst types of illiterate ne'er-do-wells there are to
abet a resurgence of crotchety pessimism. But now I know that in a tacit concession of defeat, Bogush is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what him deranged ventures have failed at. You know what I mean? It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to him barbaric superficial reports is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Someone once said to me, "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Bogush's hijinks could be considered appropriate." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I've tried explaining to Bogush's cronies that Bogush is almost unique among arrogant lecherous perjurers in that he
espouses a psychotic view of reality and a defense of cranky pauperism, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I have had enough of him batty machinations, but I won't linger on that. On a more personal note, him proposed social programs epitomize all that is unbalanced in the world. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that certain facts are clear. For instance, he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bogush's own language, overtly unrestrained. No history can justify it. Bogush condones the baleful ethics that will
bombard me with insults. To win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is an injustice.

I hate to say this, but to say that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is benighted nonsense and untrue to boot. I fear that, over time, Bogush's insinuations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lend a helping hand. You shouldn't let Bogush intimidate you.
You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not him. Even though he gives flattering titles to him natural distempers, there is a political agenda behind the "diabolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society" malarkey. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now
I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I stand by what I've written before, that if we take Bogush's dissertations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Bogush will direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close where I began: I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to tell you a little bit about Bogush and him vile sophistries.

Jack Russell
(no login)
213.186.1.154

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 15 2003, 7:48 AM

Blimey Bogush your posts are even more incoherent than usual.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.113.176

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm

December 18 2003, 12:36 AM

Nearly as bad as yours:

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Dr. Fungus JR Leify, Ph.D.'s desert of foolishness. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: It may seem difficult at first to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. It is. But in order to convince us that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras -- Fungus often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. If you think about it, you should not ask, "Why can't we all just get along?", but rather, "What exactly is his point?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that if one could get a Ph.D. in Obstructionism, he would be the first in line to have one. As is often the case, Fungus can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could leave behind a wake of haughty reaction. We need to stand up for our rights. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Fungus doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

If an attempt to threaten the common good isn't mingy, it certainly is callow. Fungus can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Fungus's claim that profits come before people is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that Fungus's legates all look like Fungus, think like Fungus, act like Fungus, and sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that..."), just like Fungus does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!

This is not the first time I've wanted to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding his brutal exegeses. But it is the first time I realized that the tone of his pleas is eerily reminiscent of that of jejune, mumpish hippies of the late 1940s, in the sense that his warnings all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Fungus? He can't help it; he just loves to infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Why can't he relieve his aching sense of inadequacy without having to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals?" On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that he has a deficiency of real goals. But upon further investigation, one will find that my general thesis is that I once managed to get Fungus to agree that we have a number of problems for which he bears most of the responsibility. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: We could opt to sit back and let him drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. If we don't soon tell Fungus to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his rash ethics, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Fungus our permission to do so.

Are you still with me? Although he would like us to believe that what I call obstinate bureaucrats are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, he has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. His plaints, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that no matter how bad you think his histrionics are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. While some of Fungus's pranks are very attractive on the surface and are doubtlessly entertaining, they ultimately serve to curry favor with squalid smart alecks using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value," their "importance," their "educational mission," and other flippant, impetuous nonsense. Having already explained that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, let me now state that Fungus's deeds are saturated with the rapacious rhetoric that will certainly deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that even if one is opposed to discourteous colonialism (and I am), then surely, we can't stop Fungus overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to snap Fungus's apostles out of their trance.

Fungus should clarify his point, so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, Fungus's litanies sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. Take, for example, mindless party animals. Now look at Fungus. If you don't believe there's a similarity, then consider that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I have never been in favor of being gratuitously ignominious. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to act honorably. (Yes, it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that the big parlor game among Fungus's legatees is guessing which of them was the first to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, but that's an entirely different story.) So who's crazy? I, or all the dotty survivalists who suspect that Fungus's half-measures are not worth getting outraged about? Before you answer, let me point out that I have a New Year's resolution for Fungus: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the warped conclusion that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli.

If I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. Fungus spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is blackguardism, which says to me that his beliefs are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that it's been well documented that homophobic vagabonds are the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. Fungus may find it inconceivable that his purpose is not to enlighten, but to deceive, but he'll come to his senses sooner or later.

His janissaries have the audacity to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his viewpoints. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that if I may be so bold, we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his loud, stinking tricks. For starters, let's say that "interdenominationalism" is "that which makes Fungus yearn to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of the most sleazy pillocks I've ever seen." Although he has tremendous popular appeal, each rung on the ladder of corporatism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Fungus to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. That is the standard process by which whiney, crude doofuses propitiate petulant Huns for later eventualities. How dare he guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community? He just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character."

Fungus wants to befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. Is this so he can withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies, or is it to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature? You be the judge. In either case, if he can one day push all of us to the brink of insanity, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. My eventual goal for this letter is to tell it like it is. I'm counting on you for your support.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.113.176

Brilliant, Eh?

December 18 2003, 12:38 AM

It must know him soooooooooooooooo well!

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

Here's another "contribution" to the debate from the Puppy-Dogs:

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Catch 22 Irony At The Beeb December 18 2003, 8:51 PM

Please keep off the BBC site Bogush........You're not welcome:

Once again, I find disappointment.........

........Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that it is my job -- and your job, too -- to work beyond the predatory plasticity of Chairman Phoenix Ariz's slogans. For starters, Chairman Ariz truly believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of her own base nature. I hope you realize that that's just an impolitic pipe dream from a depraved pipe, and that in the real world, Chairman Ariz is stepping over the line when she attempts to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence -- way over the line. She claims that she acts in the public interest. Predictably, she cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that Chairman Ariz wants me to stop trying to strike at the heart of her efforts to attack the very fabric of this nation. Instead, she'd rather I stampede into the abattoir. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.

To some extent, I and Chairman Ariz part company when it comes to the issue of stoicism. She feels that the cure for evil is more evil, while I believe that she contends that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt form the association in the public's mind between any equivocations Chairman Ariz disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality". Sounds rather ghastly, doesn't it? Well, that's Chairman Ariz for you. For the record, the acid test for her "kinder, gentler" new practices should be, "Do they still rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of Chairman Ariz's commentaries so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of her attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Chairman Ariz's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must investigate the development of sexism as a concept.

Others may disagree, but I think that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Chairman Ariz had learned anything from history, she'd know that she is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Chairman Ariz is factionalism. Why? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Chairman Ariz and her yes-men take is that the core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that cowardice, irresponsibility, and Dadaism are inextricably wedded in Chairman Ariz's jibes. Her lapdogs often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear.

Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that Chairman Ariz argues that she is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But Chairman Ariz uses the word "hydrometallurgically" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Chairman Ariz truly believes that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. It is just such devious, sententious megalomania, infantile egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Chairman Ariz to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of soulless lugs. In all fairness, authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash, then there is unmistakably no hope for you.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that I don't care what others say about Chairman Ariz. She's still hectoring, bumptious, and she intends to scupper my initiative to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. I never cease to be amazed at the way that she has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. I will not quibble with Chairman Ariz as to whether or not I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Instead, I'll simply state that Chairman Ariz likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs and leave it at that.

The next time she decides to preach hatred, she should think to herself, cui bono? -- who benefits? She is utterly avaricious. We all are, to some extent, but Chairman Ariz sets the curve.

If we let her incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, then greed, corruption, and totalitarianism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Chairman Ariz's revenge fantasies can be rightly understood only as what some scary devotees of conspiracy theories have been brave enough to call them: a failure. I recently heard Chairman Ariz tell a bunch of people that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. As mean-spirited as her taradiddles are, she has a strategy. Her strategy is to infantilize and corrupt the general public. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Chairman Ariz.

Does she remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people she made fun of just so others would like her more? Even if she does, I'm sure she doesn't care, because in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that spoon-feed us her pabulum suddenly gain a mass following. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Why does she have to be such a party pooper? A clue might be that I have to wonder where she got the idea that it is my view that the Universe belongs to her by right. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Chairman Ariz likes to cite poll results that "prove" that she can represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, and get away with it. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that even when the facts don't fit, Chairman Ariz sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that she has her moral compass in tact. I overheard one of her secret police say, "Profits come before people." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Chairman Ariz. She reports the news selectively in order to advance her agenda. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Chairman Ariz's ignominious recommendations can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

There are no two ways about it; if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. I pause to note that Chairman Ariz's accomplices all look like Chairman Ariz, think like Chairman Ariz, act like Chairman Ariz, and endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy, just like Chairman Ariz does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "she turns her back on our most heartfelt pleas for mercy." She has convinced a lot of people that without her superior guidance, we will go nowhere. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, Chairman Ariz is not only immoral, but amoral. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that it is my job -- and your job, too -- to work beyond the predatory plasticity of Chairman Phoenix Ariz's slogans. For starters, Chairman Ariz truly believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of her own base nature. I hope you realize that that's just an impolitic pipe dream from a depraved pipe, and that in the real world, Chairman Ariz is stepping over the line when she attempts to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence -- way over the line. She claims that she acts in the public interest. Predictably, she cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that Chairman Ariz wants me to stop trying to strike at the heart of her efforts to attack the very fabric of this nation. Instead, she'd rather I stampede into the abattoir. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.

To some extent, I and Chairman Ariz part company when it comes to the issue of stoicism. She feels that the cure for evil is more evil, while I believe that she contends that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt form the association in the public's mind between any equivocations Chairman Ariz disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality". Sounds rather ghastly, doesn't it? Well, that's Chairman Ariz for you. For the record, the acid test for her "kinder, gentler" new practices should be, "Do they still rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of Chairman Ariz's commentaries so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of her attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Chairman Ariz's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must investigate the development of sexism as a concept.

Others may disagree, but I think that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Chairman Ariz had learned anything from history, she'd know that she is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Chairman Ariz is factionalism. Why? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Chairman Ariz and her yes-men take is that the core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that cowardice, irresponsibility, and Dadaism are inextricably wedded in Chairman Ariz's jibes. Her lapdogs often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear.

Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that Chairman Ariz argues that she is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But Chairman Ariz uses the word "hydrometallurgically" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Chairman Ariz truly believes that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. It is just such devious, sententious megalomania, infantile egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Chairman Ariz to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of soulless lugs. In all fairness, authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash, then there is unmistakably no hope for you.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that I don't care what others say about Chairman Ariz. She's still hectoring, bumptious, and she intends to scupper my initiative to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. I never cease to be amazed at the way that she has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. I will not quibble with Chairman Ariz as to whether or not I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Instead, I'll simply state that Chairman Ariz likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs and leave it at that.

The next time she decides to preach hatred, she should think to herself, cui bono? -- who benefits? She is utterly avaricious. We all are, to some extent, but Chairman Ariz sets the curve.

If we let her incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, then greed, corruption, and totalitarianism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Chairman Ariz's revenge fantasies can be rightly understood only as what some scary devotees of conspiracy theories have been brave enough to call them: a failure. I recently heard Chairman Ariz tell a bunch of people that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. As mean-spirited as her taradiddles are, she has a strategy. Her strategy is to infantilize and corrupt the general public. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Chairman Ariz.

Does she remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people she made fun of just so others would like her more? Even if she does, I'm sure she doesn't care, because in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that spoon-feed us her pabulum suddenly gain a mass following. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Why does she have to be such a party pooper? A clue might be that I have to wonder where she got the idea that it is my view that the Universe belongs to her by right. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Chairman Ariz likes to cite poll results that "prove" that she can represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, and get away with it. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that even when the facts don't fit, Chairman Ariz sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that she has her moral compass in tact. I overheard one of her secret police say, "Profits come before people." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Chairman Ariz. She reports the news selectively in order to advance her agenda. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Chairman Ariz's ignominious recommendations can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

There are no two ways about it; if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. I pause to note that Chairman Ariz's accomplices all look like Chairman Ariz, think like Chairman Ariz, act like Chairman Ariz, and endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy, just like Chairman Ariz does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "she turns her back on our most heartfelt pleas for mercy." She has convinced a lot of people that without her superior guidance, we will go nowhere. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, Chairman Ariz is not only immoral, but amoral. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that it is my job -- and your job, too -- to work beyond the predatory plasticity of Chairman Phoenix Ariz's slogans. For starters, Chairman Ariz truly believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of her own base nature. I hope you realize that that's just an impolitic pipe dream from a depraved pipe, and that in the real world, Chairman Ariz is stepping over the line when she attempts to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence -- way over the line. She claims that she acts in the public interest. Predictably, she cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that Chairman Ariz wants me to stop trying to strike at the heart of her efforts to attack the very fabric of this nation. Instead, she'd rather I stampede into the abattoir. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.

To some extent, I and Chairman Ariz part company when it comes to the issue of stoicism. She feels that the cure for evil is more evil, while I believe that she contends that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt form the association in the public's mind between any equivocations Chairman Ariz disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality". Sounds rather ghastly, doesn't it? Well, that's Chairman Ariz for you. For the record, the acid test for her "kinder, gentler" new practices should be, "Do they still rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of Chairman Ariz's commentaries so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of her attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Chairman Ariz's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must investigate the development of sexism as a concept.

Others may disagree, but I think that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Chairman Ariz had learned anything from history, she'd know that she is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Chairman Ariz is factionalism. Why? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Chairman Ariz and her yes-men take is that the core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that cowardice, irresponsibility, and Dadaism are inextricably wedded in Chairman Ariz's jibes. Her lapdogs often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear.

Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that Chairman Ariz argues that she is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But Chairman Ariz uses the word "hydrometallurgically" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Chairman Ariz truly believes that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. It is just such devious, sententious megalomania, infantile egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Chairman Ariz to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of soulless lugs. In all fairness, authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash, then there is unmistakably no hope for you.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that I don't care what others say about Chairman Ariz. She's still hectoring, bumptious, and she intends to scupper my initiative to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. I never cease to be amazed at the way that she has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. I will not quibble with Chairman Ariz as to whether or not I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Instead, I'll simply state that Chairman Ariz likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs and leave it at that.

The next time she decides to preach hatred, she should think to herself, cui bono? -- who benefits? She is utterly avaricious. We all are, to some extent, but Chairman Ariz sets the curve.

If we let her incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, then greed, corruption, and totalitarianism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Chairman Ariz's revenge fantasies can be rightly understood only as what some scary devotees of conspiracy theories have been brave enough to call them: a failure. I recently heard Chairman Ariz tell a bunch of people that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. As mean-spirited as her taradiddles are, she has a strategy. Her strategy is to infantilize and corrupt the general public. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Chairman Ariz.

Does she remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people she made fun of just so others would like her more? Even if she does, I'm sure she doesn't care, because in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that spoon-feed us her pabulum suddenly gain a mass following. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Why does she have to be such a party pooper? A clue might be that I have to wonder where she got the idea that it is my view that the Universe belongs to her by right. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Chairman Ariz likes to cite poll results that "prove" that she can represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, and get away with it. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that even when the facts don't fit, Chairman Ariz sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that she has her moral compass in tact. I overheard one of her secret police say, "Profits come before people." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Chairman Ariz. She reports the news selectively in order to advance her agenda. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Chairman Ariz's ignominious recommendations can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

There are no two ways about it; if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. I pause to note that Chairman Ariz's accomplices all look like Chairman Ariz, think like Chairman Ariz, act like Chairman Ariz, and endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy, just like Chairman Ariz does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "she turns her back on our most heartfelt pleas for mercy." She has convinced a lot of people that without her superior guidance, we will go nowhere. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, Chairman Ariz is not only immoral, but amoral. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

From:

Catch 22 Irony At The Beeb

This message has been edited by bogush from IP address 81.77.64.224 on Dec 18, 2003 10:35 PM

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.39.152

Some More Of The Beeb Brigade's Better Discussion Points

December 21 2003, 7:54 PM

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Racism At PC Jack's Beloved Beeb December 20 2003, 1:55 PM

2076 word spam post, actually this repeated six times:

Can't you get it into your thick skull.....YOU'RE NOT WELCOME.

Hi Leif.
I was merely returning the 4000 word computer generated thesis one of your friends accidentally left behind on my thread in the other place. I would have thought you would have been grateful to get it back on their behalf. It would be a shame if they missed out on their very own PhD because they carelessly left it behind.

I'm sure I've seen some stuff with your name on it inadvertently left in places where it had no business. No doubt that's why you've forgotten where you left it and never retrieved it. As I'm a lot nicer than Bogey I'll return that for you too. You're obviously going for another PhD. But didn't you realise that they don't like stuff off the net to be submitted? Never mind something written by a computer!

With any luck Bogey will see sense and go to the polce himself before I get bored with doing good deeds 0:)

By the way, I had a look at the Honest John website and found some very interesting things there. But then I found that Bogey had already done the research for me and put it on his forum.

You are a one, Leif! Swearing you didn't know he had returned. And his posts sandwiched between yours. I would have thought you had analytical skills sharper than that. How come you spotted his return here, called for his banning, but didn't notice him posting next to you there, with the identical log in (just before he was banned there too)?

Do you know of any other sites he's been banned from? Not counting the two you were also on, of course! (And why is that Jack Russell always calling for him to be banned?)

Reading his side of the story, or rather the actual evidence, was even more interesting than reading your story. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Like all bullies, Jack the Terror can't swallow his own medicine! December 20 2003, 2:02 PM

I'LL LEAVE YOU LOT IN PEACE ONCE BOGWASH STOPS INFECTING THE BBC SITE WITH HIS PRESENCE...............................

Followed by the above post repeated ten times (3160 words).

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Parking Offence December 20 2003, 1:54 PM

Clear off Bog....

Followed by the above only repeated four times (1384 words)

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Parking Offence December 20 2003, 9:47 PM

This drivel was homesick so I've brought it back:

Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who shouldHi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post] I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Only 421 words!

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Bernard Manning jokes December 20 2003, 1:58 PM

WHAT A PATHETIC SITE THIS IS..............

Followed by that post repeated a mere twenty times this time (6320 words)!

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Bring Back The tram - And Watch It Backfire! December 20 2003, 9:54 PM

re: An apology Health N Safety - 23rd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:38
And if you think I'm being paranoid:
Ask old George why he hates the police. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 22nd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:36
Or, in the case of Jack, and his aliases: re: An apology Health N Safety - 23rd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:38
And if you think I'm being paranoid:
Ask old George why he hates the police. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 22nd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:36
Or, in the case of Jack, and his aliases: too busy spamming the "It's Your Duty Forum".
Now, if you want to see what real spamming looks like, see what "they" have done there.

But, of course, it's hardly surprising:

"Duty" is anathema to the "liberals".

Only their "rights", and the rights they deign to distribute to their favourites, that count.

Just like in the old USSR that they hoped to recreate here. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 21st post - 14 Dec 2003 21:32
Do you mean things like:
re: WARNING Bernard Hawtrey - 11th post - 10 Dec 2003 19:17 In fact that bloke Health N Safety (aka Bogush) was about as funny as woodworm in a cripple's crutch!!

re: Where is everyone today ? Bernard Hawtrey - 9th post - 10 Dec 2003 19:13 Richard be very cautious of the 'Health N Safety' poster. This is a fellow who is banned from this site.

He originally went under the alias Bogush J Mann.

He thought he was God's gift to all.

If you look back through the archives, of this message board, you'll find endless drivel of his and many many insults to his fellow posters.

This board is so much better without his annoying presence.

99% agree I think.

re: WARNING Dave Bennell - 304th post - 10 Dec 2003 18:50 Richard, in war there are no winners. All are loosers, and that is what will happen if this "Mann" is allowed to resume posting. We will lose the ability to debate a subject due to his interferance and habit of twisting themes to his own "pro-speed Anti-safety",egotistical agenda.

re: WARNING Bernard Hawtrey - 9th post - 10 Dec 2003 13:24 All the back-biting he gave out on his own forum - what a hypocrite!!

Or perhaps polite postings such as:

An apology Agnes McKenzie - 34th post - 9 Dec 2003 10:07 I must apologise for posting: "You English don't understand the deep passion we Americans have for our freedom to "bear arms" Then Richard, young man, it's a God sent mercy that only a very small minority of misguided souls in this country share your countrymens passion.

I forgot the apostrophe in countrymen's.

And:

Another American Passion George Painter - 192nd post - 8 Dec 2003 20:27 Litigation. Here's a couple of the more ridiculous ones: Nineteen-year............

AND

Terrence Dickson..........

What a crazy nation.

.

Or perhaps it's just that even the half a dozen "people" who still post are sick and tired of anti-car, anti-gun, anti-american "liberals"?

Isn't it strange, though, how the "liberals" turned on that poor illiterate (dyslexic?) student a while back?

And how, despite being pro multi-culturalism and anti-racist, they are the first to turn on foreigners when they find them in their re: An apology Health N Safety - 23rd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:38
And if you think I'm being paranoid:
Ask old George why he hates the police. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 22nd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:36
Or, in the case of Jack, and his aliases: too busy spamming the "It's Your Duty Forum".
Now, if you want to see what real spamming looks like, see what "they" have done there.

But, of course, it's hardly surprising:

"Duty" is anathema to the "liberals".

Only their "rights", and the rights they deign to distribute to their favourites, that count.

Just like in the old USSR that they hoped to recreate here. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Repeated five times (2795 words).

Anonymous62.254.0.30

Re: I take it........................... December 20 2003, 1:57 PM

THIS TRIPE IS MORE AT HOME HERE..........

Followed by that post repeated five times (1580 words).

Anonymous62.254.0.30

Re: I take it........................... December 20 2003, 9:53 PM

Re: I take it........................... December 20 2003, 9:53 PM

re: An apology Health N Safety - 23rd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:38
And if you think I'm being paranoid:
Ask old George why he hates the police. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 22nd post - 14 Dec 2003 21:36
Or, in the case of Jack, and his aliases: too busy spamming the "It's Your Duty Forum".
Now, if you want to see what real spamming looks like, see what "they" have done there.

But, of course, it's hardly surprising:

"Duty" is anathema to the "liberals".

Only their "rights", and the rights they deign to distribute to their favourites, that count.

Just like in the old USSR that they hoped to recreate here. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: An apology Health N Safety - 21st post - 14 Dec 2003 21:32
Do you mean things like:
re: WARNING Bernard Hawtrey - 11th post - 10 Dec 2003 19:17 In fact that bloke Health N Safety (aka Bogush) was about as funny as woodworm in a cripple's crutch!!

re: Where is everyone today ? Bernard Hawtrey - 9th post - 10 Dec 2003 19:13 Richard be very cautious of the 'Health N Safety' poster. This is a fellow who is banned from this site.

He originally went under the alias Bogush J Mann.

He thought he was God's gift to all.

If you look back through the archives, of this message board, you'll find endless drivel of his and many many insults to his fellow posters.

This board is so much better without his annoying presence.

99% agree I think.

re: WARNING Dave Bennell - 304th post - 10 Dec 2003 18:50 Richard, in war there are no winners. All are loosers, and that is what will happen if this "Mann" is allowed to resume posting. We will lose the ability to debate a subject due to his interferance and habit of twisting themes to his own "pro-speed Anti-safety",egotistical agenda.

re: WARNING Bernard Hawtrey - 9th post - 10 Dec 2003 13:24 All the back-biting he gave out on his own forum - what a hypocrite!!

Or perhaps polite postings such as:

An apology Agnes McKenzie - 34th post - 9 Dec 2003 10:07 I must apologise for posting: "You English don't understand the deep passion we Americans have for our freedom to "bear arms" Then Richard, young man, it's a God sent mercy that only a very small minority of misguided souls in this country share your countrymens passion.

I forgot the apostrophe in countrymen's.

And:

Another American Passion George Painter - 192nd post - 8 Dec 2003 20:27 Litigation. Here's a couple of the more ridiculous ones: Nineteen-year............

AND

Terrence Dickson..........

What a crazy nation.

.

Or perhaps it's just that even the half a dozen "people" who still post are sick and tired of anti-car, anti-gun, anti-american "liberals"?

Isn't it strange, though, how the "liberals" turned on that poor illiterate (dyslexic?) student a while back?

And how, despite being pro multi-culturalism and anti-racist, they are the first to turn on foreigners when they find them in their midst, as they did in the "self disclosure of chinese medicine" thread.

And strange how all the "liberals" become very illiberal when someone with the name like Bogush dares to post the truth on "their" forum! [reply] [Complain about this post]

559 word "post".

Eamon E mouse 80.2.113.128

More twaddle

December 21 2003, 11:29 AM

This one's a cracker: 3221 words.

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 21 2003, 8:34 PM

Spamming up your own site.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.0.156

More "Contributions From The Beeb Boys

December 21 2003, 9:01 PM

This might seem to be getting repetitive, but no, it's all "original" stuff:

Is this Jack Russell?

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Is this Jack Russell? December 20 2003, 1:56 PM

kEEP YOUR RUBBISH ON THIS FORUM WHERE IT BELONGS...........

Followed by that "post" repeated five times: 1580 words of luvverly spam.

Eamon E Mouse 80.2.113.128

Yet More Twaddle December 21 2003, 11:32 AM

Yes, it's a 3,221 word "Post":

You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.
"Artigen" News Tickers:- [World News] [SciTech] [Coolsite] [InfoTech] [Health] [Associaton of British Drivers]
..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Get this on your web site - FREE from FuelProtest.com

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please!
January 25 2001 at 1:54 AM bogush (Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been working on it steadily over the past couple of weeks, and there have been quite a few of what I think are improvements.

Any comments, criticisms or tips?

PS have any of you actually surfed the links from the "Ecology" page?

Any coments regarding that page?

Also, please feel free to contribute links/advise me of broken links etc!

Post anything relevant on this thread please, it'll keep it all together.

Respond to this message

Author Reply
Arthur Gibson
(Login Arthurgibson)
One comment January 25 2001, 10:59 AM

In business these days you have to be "customer focused." Your site is good, but the front page lacks this quality. If it were me, I would drop all the autobiographical stuff, or hide it elsewhere.

The visitor wants to know what's in it for them. Not your personal details. This is a common mistake that new web sites suffer from. Please don't take offence, but your site would improve if you follow my advice.

Most people are selfish. Let them know immediately on the front page how they can gain by using your site. The hard truth is that no one gives stuff about YOU, or me, or anyone but themselves.

I always think that regularly updated NEWS on the front page is good and your site would lend itself to this. I never look at your front page, I assume that it will never alter, I just bookmark the forum and skip the front page. If I thought that there might be the occasional surprise on the front page, I would call in once a week to see what was new.

Please do not think that my criticism overlooks the fact that you have built a great site and I am sure that we all appreciate your hard work.

Arthur Gibson

Robert King
(Login robkings)
Bogey January 25 2001, 1:29 PM

I have to admit that, like Arthur, I come straight to the message board but, I promise I'll have a look when I get time, Do have alook at mine, it's not as good as yours and I don't have the skills that Russell has, I do have a n arial font though. I've only just got this site and don't yet know what I'm going to do with it but, I've put a couple of my extensive archive of pics on it. You can download them for your wallpaper.

http://members.scotland.com/RobertK/

Robert

PS You'd love the scotland.com message boards, They're full of yanks arguing about the right way to wear the kilt (you can tell they're yanks 'cos the first thing they ask you is what clan your from and then tell you that they've traced their lineage 400 years back and they're a direct descendant of Baron something or the Earl of somewhere.)

PPS Happy Burns night, have a dram!

Arthur Gibson
(Login Arthurgibson)
NEWS January 31 2001, 10:25 AM

I hate the news things on your site Bogush. The ticker things drive me mad. (Madder.)

I know that it was me that suggested a news section on the front page, but NEWS news was not what I meant. I meant that you put any news regarding fuel protests, global warming etc. on the front page.

Please ditch the flickering NEWS things.

(I said F L I C K E R I N G)

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
HELP! January 31 2001, 10:37 AM

Anyone else agree/disagree.

(Before I spend any more time on that aspect - and does anyone know how much time it takes to collect all the headlines, post them, and then change them and repost them so fast they flicker?!?!)

And what about the non-flickering ones?

PS any web-techies out there know why the "Moreover" experiment on the resources page doesn't show lots of lovely fuel tax protest headlines (that would have been your front page if it had worked Arthur!).

The zyweb pagebuilder seems to be putting lots of formatting at the beginning of each line of javascript(?) which is probably what is causing the problem.

Anyone with the technical knowhow got any ideas on how to stop that happening?

Robert King
(Login robkings)
Broken Link February 1 2001, 10:38 AM

Bogey,

Keep getting a 404 at the link Global Warming Fact or?
page http://indigo.col-ed.org/mine/forbes.htm

Robert

gaz
(Login gary.c)
The Page Cannot Be Displayed February 1 2001, 7:23 PM

"Blairs Blunder" on the Protest page.

Gaz.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Thanks February 2 2001, 1:04 AM

To you both.

gaz
(Login gary.c)
A Link February 9 2001, 12:11 AM

Here's a link you may want to include on your site.

http://www.fish4cars.co.uk/features/fueltax.html

Gaz.

==========================

Hmmmmmmm,

Finally managed to connect to the site (my clapped out old banger isn't up to all this high tech stuff).

Now that would't be Arthur filling up at �2.29 a litre at his local Tesco would it. After what he's been telling us?!?!?!

This message has been edited by bogush on Feb 9, 2001 11:31 PM

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Ta February 9 2001, 1:14 AM

Gaz

Almacal
(Login almacal)
Free Tip No. 2 February 9 2001, 11:58 AM

Alright, Bogush, here goes. I generally don't comment on "Personal" pages, I think it's not very professional for me to do things like that. Since you want some, here's some.

Don't use that abortion, zyweb. Get something decent in order to build your pages. Pagemill (now defunct but not a bad editor) FrontPage (you might even have a "lite" version given away free with your computer. Or any number of WYSIWYG editors you can download for free at tucows or zdnet or wherever. Get a small, basic guide to HTML and build your site manually. Zyweb is for desperate people.

Failing that, get a snotty from the local community college or a tame undergraduate, slip 'em �25, a quarter ounce and some king size skins and bingo! Your father had a brother called Robert.

P.S. At least you resisted the temptation of putting pictures of you , the dog etc. on the front page. I've seen some Horrors in my time, I have.

Almacal the Amiable Anarchist
Fiend of the Fuel Protest

Arthur Gibson
(Login Arthurgibson)
Frontpage February 9 2001, 12:18 PM

The decorators have finished and I can get to my stuff at last.

I will send Frontpage to you immediately.

Except I doubt that it will work on your free space, because you need "Frontpage extensions" on the server. Is that correct Almanac?

Bogush, ask them if you can use Frontpage on your web space or not. If not, we will all have to club together and buy you a decent site on a fast server. www.bogushbull****.co.uk should be OK for you, I will register it for you today.

Almacal
(Login almacal)
No , not really February 12 2001, 12:12 PM

Naw, you can build your site with front Page without having to use any of Microsoft's wanky extensions. Just make sure this forum and any other contact forms are processed the way they are now (just copy the code into a page).

Most ISP's can cope anyway (I think).

I still recommend the snotty/undergarduate approach.

Almacal the Amiable Anarchist
Fiend of the Fuel Protest

Elmer Fudd
(Login ElmerFudd)
Untitled April 10 2001, 1:32 PM

I follow the links fow the Wascally Wabbit and guess wot?

NO WABBIT !!!

Three days looking, a huge phone bill and NO WABBIT!!!

I wos twicked into comming to this site.

Still its a nice place to be for a couple of hours a week.
Keep up the good work.

Oh a hunting I will go a hunting I will go......
SSSShhhhh.You have to be vewy vewy quiet.

Mark Newman
(Login cactussmex)
Mark Newman... August 18 2001, 6:09 AM

Man I have been meaning to pop over here forever. Finally did it, and I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know...

See ya!

Make your voice, (and mine!), heard!
http://network54.com/Realm/marksmouth

james Collins
(no login)
update November 11 2003, 10:01 AM

no one has posted here in a while. is the site still active?

I wanted to suggest a URL

http://www.buyacar.co.uk

www.buyacar.co.uk specialises in supplying discounted cars & cars in demand without the waiting lists. It has a large selection of new cars & used cars available for immediate delivery with a great package.

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 12 2003, 1:24 PM

Hers a great link for this site, it suits it so well

www.****.com

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm November 12 2003, 7:52 PM

Thanks.

I would have liked 5 Star.

But no one can complain at four of them!

Hanbo...
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 12 2003, 9:10 PM

That link is already in use,

By the 'BEEB' site!!!

Oh, sorry, my mistake,
Too many 'stars' for 'That' site

terry
(no login)
congrats November 28 2003, 1:08 AM

congratulations are due to merseyside regional authorities for providing funding for 50 safety cameras to be sited in known blackspots. this forward looking authority together with their safety parteners are to be acclaimed for their efforts towards developing road safety measures unlikes the idiotic contributors to this board who seem to think that speed is the be all and end all of motoring.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm November 28 2003, 7:03 PM

Firstly, would you like to point to just one individual here who thinks that speed is the be all and end all of anything.

Secondly, care to explain why, since the spread of greed scameras the previously falling fatality trends have at best flatlined, and even appear to have started to reverse.

Thirdly, you have clicked on a suggestions button and posted the above:

What, exactly, is you suggestion?

Or are you just trying to suggest to us the IQ level of the speed camera supporters?

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 28 2003, 7:18 PM

Thirdly, you have clicked on a suggestions button and posted the above:

What, exactly, is you suggestion?

Or are you just trying to suggest to us the IQ level of the speed camera supporters?

Welcome to the board where people come to get insulted. You've passed your initiation Terry. Don't expect any reason or expect your views to be respected here. If you want a proper debate then I suggest you visit your local BBC board. Bogush is banned from them so you can expect to be treated with respect.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm November 28 2003, 8:53 PM

I must apologise for the quality of the visitors here Terry.

Most of them seem to be non-driving technophobe anti-speed pro-trammers from the Beeb site refered to.

They aren't capable of doing anytghing as complicated as posting a link.

So I'll do you both a favour and deal with the technical bits for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=england.nottingham

Is where he wants you to go.

And who can blame him.

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 28 2003, 9:49 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=england.nottingham

Is where he wants you to go.

And it's where Bogush would dearly love to return to. However, he's banned and we don't want him back!

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm November 28 2003, 11:00 PM

Which bit of this is a Suggestions link for the Its Your Duty website, and not a discussion thread, do you not understand?

Which is something you seem to have a lot of difficulty with in general.

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 29 2003, 10:24 AM

As I said come here to be insulted.

Now I wonder why Bogush was banned......

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! November 29 2003, 10:25 AM

"Which bit of this is a Suggestions link for the Its Your Duty website, and not a discussion thread, do you not understand?"

Improve it by shutting it down.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Ignoramus November 29 2003, 11:44 AM

Where in:

"Which bit of this is a Suggestions link for the Its Your Duty website, and not a discussion thread, do you not understand?"

Did you you find:

"Improve it by shutting it down."

?

terry
(no login)
broken link December 20 2003, 10:26 AM

you asked readers to advise you on broken links. heres one.link between your brain and your mouth. heres another. link between your brain and typing fingers. heres another. link between this forum and common sense. heres another. link between this forum and road safety. heres another. link between bogush and humanity. heres another. link between bogush and politeness. link that is not broken. link between bogush and conspirisy to commit road traffic offences. when the broken links are fixed this site might be worth looking at.

Sam69
(Login Sam69)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! December 20 2003, 11:06 AM

Feel free at any time to present any evidence that supports your "counter Bogush" stance.

Ad hominems merely serve to illustrate the weakness of your position.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm December 20 2003, 12:53 PM

Dave Bennell of the Beeb, isn't it?

I see that you are maintaining your usual high standards of reasoned debate.

terry
(no login)
what are you on about December 20 2003, 1:06 PM

wernt you banned from the bbc, bighead.at least mr bennell? and the others on the bbc site have a good thing going without your unjustified attacks on the users of the bbc board.why did you pull out my last post? answer, because you have the truth told about you on your own forum can you? you big headed prat.

Dave Bennell
(no login)
No Title December 20 2003, 7:27 PM

Mr Mann, please refrain from associating me with your poster, Terry.

I was informed by a friend that my name was being used on your forum, much to my disgust as I have no wish to be linked, in anyway, with your activities.

Please, do not use my name on your boards in future.

Thank You.

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm December 20 2003, 9:05 PM

1) This isn't a discussion thread.

2) I have not "pulled out" your "last post".

So what are you drivelling on about?

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! December 20 2003, 9:46 PM

Found wandering and lost:

Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Dave Bennell
(no login)
No Title December 20 2003, 10:31 PM

I have no idea what you are "drivelling on about".

Please stop using my name, as I have no wish to be associated with this board or its contents.

Thank You.

Current Topic - Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! Respond to this message

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof. However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious". The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner. All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged

Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please!

Anonymous 62.254.0.30

Re: Anyone looked at my website recently? Comments/Links please! December 20 2003, 9:46 PM

Found wandering and lost:

Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Eamon E Mouse 80.2.113.128

Twaddle December 21 2003, 11:28 AM

Same 3,221 word post as in:

I take it........................... Eamon E mouse 80.2.113.128 More twaddle December 21 2003, 11:29 AM

Eamon E Mouse 80.2.113.128

Heres some more returned twaddle December 21 2003, 11:36 AM

A 1,209 word post:

CATEGORIES
TV
RADIO
COMMUNICATE
WHERE I LIVE
INDEX
SEARCH

SUNDAY
21st December 2003
Text only

BBC Homepage

� England
Beds, Herts & Bucks
Berkshire
Birmingham
Black Country
Bradford
Bristol
Cambridgeshire
Cornwall
Coventry & Warks
Cumbria
Derby
Devon
Essex
Gloucestershire
Guernsey
Hereford & Worcs
Humber
Jersey
Kent
Lancashire
Leeds
Leicester
London
Lincolnshire
Liverpool
Manchester
Norfolk
Northamptonshire
North Yorkshire
Nottingham
Oxford
Shropshire
Somerset
Southampton
South Yorkshire
Stoke & Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey, Sussex
Tees
Tyne
Wear
Wiltshire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the BBC

Contact Us

Help

Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

You are logged in as Dave Bennell

Where I Live England Messageboards
Choose an Area... Beds, Herts & BucksBerkshireBirminghamBlack CountryBradford & West YorkshireCambridgeshireCornwallCoventry & WarwickshireCumbriaDerbyDevonEssexGloucestershireGuernseyHereford & WorcesterHumberJerseyKentLancashireLeedsLeicesterLincolnshireLiverpoolManchesterNorfolkNorthamptonshireNorth YorkshireNottinghamOxfordShropshireSomersetSouthamptonSouth YorkshireStoke & StaffordshireSuffolkSurrey & SussexTeesTyneWearWiltshire
Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

Question for the moderators I can't believe it's not Jack Russell - 263rd post - 19 Dec 2003 12:14
Last night I received a huge 1.5MB spam email from someone calling themselves Sir Phoenix Arizona using a Freeserve email account. This caused problems on my PC. There is on this site a posting from someone with a similar name. Evidently someone wants me to believe these are the same people.
Someone called Bogush J Mann has been twice banned from this site for disrupting the normal forum use. On his forum he has posted my personal email address in order to encourage others to spam me. He has also posted, there and here, malicious allegations against me including alleging that I instigated pornographic emails to be sent to his email account. He also makes the false claim that numerous postings on his forum - under various names other than mine - are from me.

He has been twice banned from the Honest John web site and has falsely claimed that I was the cause. The moderator of the site has publicly stated otherwise and described Bogush J Mann as a bully amongst other things.

So, to the point: what can I do about this person or persons? I have made formal complaints to the ISPs. Also, what are the legal aspects of what he and someone called Phoenix Arizona have been doing? I presume that spamming an email account with pornographic images or otherwise is a criminal offence? What are the legal implications of false accusing someone of such an act?

Thankyou. [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Bernard Hawtrey - 14th post - 19 Dec 2003 13:04
Looks like Phoenix Ariz is barred from here too Jack. At least his disruptive post has been removed anyway!! [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Phoenix Ariz - 3rd post - 19 Dec 2003 19:43
So now telling the truth is disruptive?
Well, I suppose pointing out that old Bogey was banned initially for complaining about people using multiple logins for the purpose of disrupting the community and annoying other users, and subsequently for reregistering, supposedly in breach of the rule that says if you use multiple logins for the purpose of disrupting the community or annoying other users you may have action taken against your accounts.

If you're a "moderator". [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Dave Bennell - 320th post - 19 Dec 2003 20:06
Phoenix Ariz aka Health N Safety aka "Bogush J Mann".
Your sarcastic style gives you away.

"So now telling the truth is disruptive?"

Just try telling the truth, Mann.

Now Go Away. [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Dave Bennell - 324th post - 19 Dec 2003 20:33
Jack, I am sure you are well aware that having pornographic material on your PC is a crimminal offence.
There are ways to detect such material, even if you have deleted the images.

There is also an offence of "Transmitting" such images.

I would stongly advise you to contact the police and let them discover who sent the porn. They have the ways and the power to put a stop to the aggrivation. [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Eddie Smith - 73rd post - 20 Dec 2003 09:06
Correction: It is not illegal to have porn pictures on your PC. Only child porn and beastiality are illegal. [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the moderators Phoenix Ariz - 4th post - 19 Dec 2003 21:35
Hi Leif.
I was merely returning the 4000 word computer generated thesis one of your friends accidentally left behind on my thread in the other place. I would have thought you would have been grateful to get it back on their behalf. It would be a shame if they missed out on their very own PhD because they carelessly left it behind.

I'm sure I've seen some stuff with your name on it inadvertently left in places where it had no business. No doubt that's why you've forgotten where you left it and never retrieved it. As I'm a lot nicer than Bogey I'll return that for you too. You're obviously going for another PhD. But didn't you realise that they don't like stuff off the net to be submitted? Never mind something written by a computer!

With any luck Bogey will see sense and go to the polce himself before I get bored with doing good deeds 0:)

By the way, I had a look at the Honest John website and found some very interesting things there. But then I found that Bogey had already done the research for me and put it on his forum.

You are a one, Leif! Swearing you didn't know he had returned. And his posts sandwiched between yours. I would have thought you had analytical skills sharper than that. How come you spotted his return here, called for his banning, but didn't notice him posting next to you there, with the identical log in (just before he was banned there too)?

Do you know of any other sites he's been banned from? Not counting the two you were also on, of course! (And why is that Jack Russell always calling for him to be banned?)

Reading his side of the story, or rather the actual evidence, was even more interesting than reading your story. [Complain about this post]

re: Question for the Leif Legions Phoenix Ariz - 5th post - 20 Dec 2003 21:48
Hi Leif & Co
Your mate Tezza, who Bogey seems to think is ole' DB, and the Beeb Battalions, have reposted this twenty times on his forum. Well 19, actually, but who's counting. Well, actually, I am, and I've just started.

And that's just in between the drivel and spam.

When I've totted it all up I'll be glad to return to sender.

Who should I address it to?

Or should I send it c/o their mate Leif?

Usual address? [Complain about this post]

[older discussion] 1 [newer discussion]

Terms of Use | Privacy

----------------------------------------

Now, who did The-Insider reckon had cut and pasted this spam?

Remind me, someone!

See:

Is this Jack Russell?

This message has been edited by bogush from IP address 81.79.65.0 on Dec 23, 2003 12:43 AM
This message has been edited by bogush from IP address 81.79.65.0 on Dec 23, 2003 12:41 AM

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 27 2003, 12:04 PM

This is so funny, I thought I'd better respond to bring it to the top of the list.

Viking
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 27 2003, 2:42 PM

Wonderful stuff!

Greenie Veg
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 29 2003, 7:50 PM

Strange though how they like this one.

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 30 2003, 11:23 PM

Got to put this one back on top. It's the most sensible thing ever put on this site.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.210.250

Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

December 31 2003, 12:08 AM

No.

Actually, I think you'll find that it is these two threads that are the most interesting.

Which is why the spammers have been very careful to ensure they don't accidentally bring them back up to the top.

The Pros And Cons Of Scameras

More Bulls**t

Leif
(no login)
195.92.67.78

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 31 2003, 12:34 AM

No, I think you will find this thread is the most interesting.

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.99.162

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

December 31 2003, 10:52 AM

Irresistibly drawn back to the scenes of your crimes?

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.99.162

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

December 31 2003, 12:32 PM

Or do you just find this bit irresistible as I do:

About the BBC

Contact Us

Help

Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

Anonymous
(no login)
62.254.0.30

Re: Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

December 31 2003, 1:45 PM

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

BCT
Better Community Transport group

Index
Background
Derivation of Event-LAeq Data
Frequency Spectrum of Tram and Bus Noise
Additional Measurements of Tram, Bus and Car Noise in Sheffield
Results

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

Site S1, entrance to Elcroft Gardens
Site S2, Eckington Way
Site S3, entrance to Rylstone Grove
Site S4. The crossroads between Glossop Road and Upper Hanover Street
Site S5. Infirmary Road

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....Site S6. Haden Street/Holme Lane
Discussion
Comparison of NET data and our data
Other noises from trams
Comparison of tram, bus and car noise
Acknowledgement
References

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....
Open this Document in MS Word 2000 format

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

Background
This report provides further analyses and further measurements of tram and other transportation noises in Sheffield, to supplement the report from the MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham entitled �Acoustic evaluation of tram noise� by J. R. Foster and R. R. A. Coles, dated 28th November 2001.

You are logged in as Dave Bennell....

Further analyses of the data previously obtained by Foster and Coles comprise the following.

(i) Derivation of the event-LAeq. That is the equivalent continuous noise level from the tram over a convenient period of analysis time, in this case six seconds, from which can be calculated the period-LAeq. That is the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level over the average length of one tram cycle. It is understood that the trams will run each way every six minutes at busy times, but less frequently at others. At the busy times therefore, there will be an average of three minutes between each tram, i.e. 3 minutes length of tram cycle. The period-LAeq will also be calculated for trams running each way every 12 minutes, and each way every 20 minutes. The impact of these on the ambient noise in various situations can then be calculated.

(ii) Measurement of the frequency spectrum of tram noise and the bus noise.

Further analyses. It was also felt desirable to measure tram noise in a number of other sites in Sheffield in order to check that Foster and Coles had not by chance hit on the one really noisy site, that beside Infirmary Road. By doing extra measurements, we would also obtain a better indication of the variability between sites and between different trams at the same site. It would also be helpful to make further comparable measurements of bus and car noise.
The report provided to us by NET, on which it seemed to be relying with respect to noise levels from trams, was that of Mott MacDonald (1991). In its paragraph B2.3.8, it refers to flange noise or �wheel squeal� on tight radius curves. It goes on to say that �the occurrence of wheel squeal can be largely avoided by � imposition of speed limits on bends�. From the information so far available on possible routes for the trams in Beeston, Chilwell and elsewhere it seems that some fairly sharp bends may be involved. We thought therefore it would be useful to see if the trams did indeed make additional unpleasant noises on such bends.

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Derivation of Event-LAeq Data
Tape recordings of tram and bus noises were available from the Institute of Hearing Research (IHR) measurements in November. In the laboratory at IHR these recordings were displayed visually, sound pressure against time. Looking at the display and the length of recording available, and choosing a length where there were no interruptions from other sounds, an analysis length of six seconds centred on the maximum level was considered to be most appropriate. The computer program used for this analysis gave the RMS (root mean square) power level averaged over the six seconds and also the maximum RMS power level for a window length of 125 ms.
For a tram movement, the Leq over 6 seconds was found to be 5 dB down on the maximum value, whether both were measured in dB (lin) or both in dB(A). The correction factor to convert from LAmax values of tram noise to LAeq is therefore taken as 5 decibels. Thus a maximum level of 84 dB(A) corresponds to an equivalent continuous sound level, LAeq, of 79 dB(A). (The figure of 84 dB(A) is used here as the average maximum level for all 31 trams measured by IHR and BCT at estimated speed of 20-30 mph and distance 7-14 metres, after normalisation to a distance of 7.5 metres.)
If the trams were due to pass each way every six minutes, that is an average of three minutes per tram. Six seconds of tram noise at LAeq of 79 dB(A) in a period of 180 seconds gives a period-LAeq that is a further 15 decibels down, i.e. 64 dB(A). (Note: this is on the assumption that the tram noise in the other 174 seconds is of sufficiently low level that it would not contribute to the period LAeq. In fact, the figure of 64 dB(A) is probably a slight under-estimate of the period LAeq of the tram.)
For trams passing each way every 12 minutes, the figure would need to be reduced by a further 3 decibels, i.e. to 61 dB(A). For trams each way every 20 minutes, it would be a further 2 decibels down, i.e. 59 dB(A). These are the figures that will be used for adding to the ambient noises in order to predict the noise climate at various sites if tram services were introduced into them.

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Frequency Spectrum of Tram and Bus Noise
The third section on the IHR demonstration tape of tram noises (IHR recording Number 7) records a bus passing, then relative quiet and then a tram passing. That tram gave a maximum noise level of 82 dB(A) at the measurement point.
These sound recordings were submitted to a simple form of frequency analysis, using the same sound level meter as used in the IHR measurements. Settings used were �Lin� frequency weighting, �fast� time weighting, and �Max� display. The attached Br�el and Kj�r type 1625 1/3-1/1 Octave Filter Set was used in the one-third octave mode. Both tram and bus noises were found to be fairly wideband in character with maximum levels at 2 kHz for the bus and at 2.5 and 3.15 kHz for the tram. The bandwidth of the noises, defined for the present purpose as including all the one-third octave levels that were not more than 10 decibels lower than the highest level, gave a range of 0.25 to 8 kHz for the bus, and 0.16 to 5 kHz for the tram.
Thus, both noises can be described as being wideband. Tram noise peaked at a slightly higher frequency than bus noise, but had a slightly lower frequency range. From the point of view of subjective attributes of such sounds, such as annoyance, speech interference, effect on sleep, there would be little to choose between the two noises when at the same dB(A) level.

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Additional Measurements of Tram, Bus and Car Noise in Sheffield
From a street map of Sheffield, we pre-selected a number of sites where we judged the trams to be passing on or beside roads and quite close to housing (3 sites), or taking a bend (2 sites). One site was one of those that had already been measured in the IHR report, that beside Infirmary Road. Another site, Haden Lane, was recommended to us earlier in the day as a traffic trouble spot caused by the trams (although not particularly noisy).
The equipment and calibration used for the noise measurements was the same as in the IHR report: a type 2235 Br�el and Kj�r sound level meter and type 4165 microphone together with windshield and tripod mounting. Measurements were made using the �A� frequency weighting, �Fast� time weighting, and �Max Hold� display. The measuring system was calibrated beforehand with a type 4230 calibrator and its calibration was re-checked soon after its use to take noise measurements in Sheffield on 12 January 2002 and in Nottingham on 13 January 2002.
The weather on both days was only a few degrees above freezing, dry and with only a light wind. Height of microphone was 1.2m.

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Results
Site S1, entrance to Elcroft Gardens. Here the tramway runs beside Eckington Way, on its east side. Elcroft Gardens comes off Eckington Way, crosses the tramway, and so into the Elcroft Gardens estate. Our measurement spot was on the pavement, at a distance of 10 metres from the near tram track, 14 metres from the further track. There is a moderate gradient on Eckington Way, upwards on the near track to us, downwards on the far track. The following LAmax noise levels and estimated vehicle speeds and distances away were recorded, all values rounded to the nearest whole number.
Trams at 10 metres. 79 dB(A) at 20 mph. 77 dB(A) at 30 mph.
Trams at 14 metres, 75 dB(A) at 20 mph. 79 dB(A) at 30 mph.
Cars at 20 metres and 30-50 mph. 69, 70, 71,64, 70 dB(A): average 69 dB(A).
Cars at 26 metres, at 30-50 mph ranged between 60 and 70 dB(A).
No buses were noted on that route during the period we were there.
Note that for purposes of comparison of noise from trams, cars and buses we will only consider those travelling at about the same speed and distances. In order to get a considerable number of comparable samples, we selected distances of 7 to 14 metres and estimated speeds between 20 and 30 mph. The tram measurements beside Eckington Way therefore can go into the average for trams, but the speed of the cars and in some cases the distance away do not qualify.
Other observations: there were considerable quantities of slimy oil beside the tracks and between them, including on the road surface where the tram tracks cross Elcroft Gardens.
Site S2, Eckington Way, where the trams cross it, just below Beighton Drake House Lane tram stop. At the place where the trams cross the road the track is flat. It bends round to cross the road, in a moderately tight bend. The tram crosses the road at a speed of between 10 and 15 mph: rather slow perhaps because of it crossing the road, perhaps because of the moderate bend.
There was no audible squeal or grinding or banging noise from the trams as they took this bend at that speed. The tram noises themselves were as follows.
At a distance of 10 metres. 79 dB(A) at 15 mph. 75 dB(A) at 10 mph.
At a distance of 14 metres. 75 dB(A) at 10 mph. 75 dB(A) at 15 mph.
Other observations: there were considerable quantities of oil around the tracks and between them right up to the edges of the road, but not on the road. We understood that the road was cleaned weekly.
Site S3, entrance to Rylstone Grove, off Donetsk Way, up and down which the trams passed. The measurement site was about 10 metres from the near tram track as it went down a moderate slope to the left and 14 metres from the further tram track. Maximum levels of tram noises and estimated speeds were as follows.
At a distance of 10 metres. 82 dB(A) at 25 mph. 81 dB(A) at 25 mph. 83 dB(A) at 30 mph. 81 dB(A) at 25 mph. Average 82 dB(A).
At a distance of 14 metres. 81 dB(A) at 30 mph. 82 dB(A) at 30 mph. 81 dB(A) at 25 mph. Average 81 dB(A).
A succession of cars passed up and down Donetsk Way, at about the same distances as the trams. Most of them were travelling at speeds of about 30 to 50 mph. Going down the hill at a distance of about 10 metres the following maximum car noise levels were recorded. 79, 75, 75, 78, 73, 75, 77, 76, 75, 76, 74, 78, 73, 74 dB(A). Average 76 dB(A). Cars going up the hill, at a distance of about 14 metres, gave the following maximum noise levels. 73, 72, 70, 73, 76, 74, 71, 74, 74, 77, 75, 74, 76, 72, 77 dB(A). Average 74 dB(A).
Other observations: at our measurement point 10 and 14 metres from the tram tracks, we could just detect vibration of our feet and legs as the trams passed. We asked residents of houses 15 to 30 metres from the tramway if they noticed the vibration: they had not.
Site S4. The crossroads between Glossop Road and Upper Hanover Street. The trams come up Glossop Road from the city centre and turn sharp right to go up Upper Hanover Street. Our measurement point was about 5 metres from that track, which was the nearer of the two. The further track was about 10 metres away, with trams coming down Upper Hanover Street and turning sharp left into Glossop Road.
Maximum tram noise levels and estimated speeds were as follows.
At 5 metres distance. 78 dB(A) at 5 mph. 75 dB(A) at 5 mph, rising to 79 dB(A) at 15 mph. 72 dB(A) at 5 mph, rising to 78 dB(A) at 15 mph. The average for those five measurements was 76 dB(A).
At 10 metres distance. 79 dB(A) at 5 mph. 78 dB(A) at 5 mph. 82 dB(A) at 5 mph. Average 80 dB(A). From those figures it will be seen that the downward track, almost twice as far away, actually gave considerably more noise. This was noticeable subjectively also.
In addition to the usual tram noise, as the tram went round the bend there was a grinding or banging type of noise on a number of occasions, particularly on the downward slope. One tram caused three such grinding noises, another caused multiple banging noises and the third caused one grind and one slight screech. Trams coming up the slope caused less additional sounds, one causing a single grind, and another causing a slight screech. Many of these tram passages were recorded on an office dictating machine and the recording has been preserved as an illustration of the type of sound. With the equipment available it was not possible to analyse those sounds further. Their shortness and sharpness ensured that they were easily audible.
Site S5. Infirmary Road. This was the same site for measurement of the trams as the first site in the IHR report (Foster and Coles, 2001). We took further measurements in exactly the same place and method as before.
Trams going up the gradual slope, at a distance of 7 metres, gave the following maximum noise levels. 92 dB(A) at 20 mph. 86 dB(A) at 20 mph. 87 dB(A) at 20 mph. 83 dB(A) at 20 mph. 83 dB(A) at 20 mph. Average 86 dB(A). There seemed no particular reason why the first of those tram passages, markedly the noisiest, was so noisy. But we both remarked on it as soon as it had passed.
Trams going down hill at a distance of 10 metres gave the following maximum levels. 82 dB(A) at 30 mph. 84 dB(A) at 30 mph. 80 dB(A) at 30 mph. 81 dB(A) at 30 mph. 82 dB(A) at 15 mph. Average 82 dB(A). The last of these trams had in fact to slow up because of a car threatening to cross its path, and in braking it emitted quite a loud screech.
It should be noted that the average levels for trams passing up and down on 15th November 2001, as measured by Foster and Coles (2001), were 83 and 82 dB(A) respectively. For the far track the levels had not apparently changed, but for the near track, the levels had increased from average 83 dB(A) to average 86 dB(A). A person living nearby approached us and, in conversation, remarked that the rail track going up the hill had become very noisy, due he said to �corrugations� which need grinding down from time to time. The grinding brings great relief from the noise, but it soon comes back. He said the track was overdue for grinding again: the rails were not ground frequently enough. In answer to our direct question, he said that he thought the tram noise had distinctly increased during the last two months or so: thus, in agreement with our measured increase over that period.
Buses going up the slope some 7 metres away and at speeds between 20 and 30 mph gave maximum levels of 78, 73, 73, and 83 dB(A), average 77 dB(A). A small ambulance moving up the slope gave a maximum of 71 dB(A), two cars gave 71 and 73 dB(A), and a small van gave 73 dB(A), all at estimated speeds between 20 and 30 mph.
Buses going down the slope, at a distance of 10 metres at speeds of about 30 mph gave levels of 73, 74 and 84 dB(A). Average 77 dB(A). The noise from the last of those three buses came from a release of compressed air, presumably from its braking system. All those buses were single-decker buses. In addition, two double-decker buses passed, one going up the slope (7 metres) giving 84 dB(A), and one going down (10 metres) giving 77 dB(A). Buses and other vehicles going up the slope had in fact been stopped nearby before moving up Infirmary Road, quite rapidly (and noisily) accelerating away up the slope, reaching speeds of 20 to 30 mph as they passed our measurement point.
Site S6. Haden Street/Holme Lane. We measured noise at the mouth of Haden Street as it opened onto Holme Lane, a main thoroughfare. In fact that was the thoroughfare which had been drawn to our attention earlier in the day by one of those who came to speak to us. We were told that it was too narrow to take trams each way and they had caused a lot of parking and unloading problems in and around Holme Lane, and thus had had a serious effect on trade in the business premises there. In fact, at a quick measurement of its width, made between passage of cars, we think it would compare closely with Chilwell Road in Beeston. Our measurement points were about 10 metres from the near tram track and 13 metres from the far track. Holme Lane was flat at that point. We were over 2 metres from the nearest building. There was quite a lot of general road traffic, so speeds were very variable. The following maximum noise levels and estimated speeds were noted.
Trams at 10 metres. 80 dB(A) at 20 mph. 81 dB(A) at 20 mph.
Trams at 13 metres. 77 dB(A) at 15 mph. 87 dB(A) at 30 mph.
Buses at 10 metres. 76 dB(A) at 15 mph.
Buses at 13 metres. 78 dB(A) at 30 mph. 79 dB(A) at 40 mph.
A van at 10 metres. 70 dB(A) at 20 mph.
Cars at 10 metres. 72 dB(A) at 30 mph. 65 dB(A) at 15 mph. 67 dB(A) at 10 mph. 65 dB(A) at 15 mph.
Cars at 13 metres. 73 dB(A) at 30 mph. 68 dB(A) at 30 mph. 70 dB(A) at 30 mph. 71 dB(A) at 40 mph.

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Discussion
Comparison of NET data and our data. The tram noises measured and reported in this report and in the IHR report were at the various estimated distances indicated in the report. The measurements at Debdale in 1987, on which NET is believed to have been basing its statements on tram noise (at least until the end of February 2002), were in a more idealised test situation: more ideal in respect of control of speed of tram and of distance from it, and the results are expressed for a tram at 7.5 metres distance and 50 kph speed. From the documents available (Mott MacDonald, 1991; Walker, 1993) the LAmax will be either 76 dB(A) or 78 dB(A). It is not clear which level was favoured for the overall environmental assessment for Line One, but for purposes of discussion here and in later reports NET�s figure will be assumed to be 78 dB(A).
In order to compare our measurements with the NET figure of 78 dB(A), the IHR and BCT data have been normalised to a distance of 7.5 metres according to the inverse square law. The average LAmax figure, normalised to 7.5 metres, was 84.3 dB(A) for the 31 trams in Sheffield which were at distances of 7 to 14 metres and estimated speeds of 20 to 30 mph (average 25 mph). Thus, the Sheffield trams are some 6 decibels noisier than NET�s original figure for Line One trams; or 10 decibels noisier if our data were normalised for speed also, to 50 kph.
Perhaps equally important is the wide range, which was from 78.4 to 91.8 dB(A). Not only was there considerable variation in level between different sites, but also between different trams at the same site. This suggests variable degrees of smoothness of rail at different sites and of condition of wheels between various trams. We are not aware of the details of the servicing of these in Sheffield or of that intended in Nottingham, but however good the latter may be it may well simply not be possible or practicable to prevent or keep retreating the sources of increased noise as soon as the noise increases.
Other noises from trams. There are other noises emitted by the trams which are more difficult to measure and evaluate. These included occasional unexplained clanking sounds and occasional screeching sounds. In addition, where the tram negotiates a fairly sharp bend, it is liable to produce a series of banging sounds, but this also seems to depend to some extent on the particular piece of track. Another source of additional sound was noted at one spot where every tram passing in one direction sent out a series of bangs, rather like a train passing over the small gaps between each length of rail. Inspection of this showed a stone jammed in the groove between the rail and the road material. Thus, quite apart from the regular noises produced by the trams and their inherent variability, there seem to be considerable number of sources of quite high-level transient sounds of very variable occurrence.
Comparison of tram, bus and car noise. The data available also permit a comparison of noises from these vehicle types. For this, all the data relating to passage of trams, buses and cars at measured or estimated distances of 7-14 metres and estimated speeds of 20-30 mph were further analysed. The distances were normalised to 7.5 metres as described above. The LAmax values were as follows. Average 84.3 for trams, 79.0 for buses, 73.8 for cars. The minimum and maximum LAmax values were as follow: 78.4 to 91.8 dB(A) for trams, 72.4 to 86.5 dB(A) for buses and 70.4 to 77.8 dB(A) for cars. The numbers averaged were 31 trams, 16 buses (which included the two double-deckers in the Infirmary Road measurements) and 12 cars.
This certainly gives a comparison of levels between these three noise sources that is very different from that given to the House of Lords by Walker (1993) in his Exhibit WBM 10. That exhibit shows LAmax values of 78 dB(A) for the tram, 86 dB(A) for buses, and 80 dB(A) for cars. The sources of his data are not clear, probably the Debdale measurements in 1987 on probably new tram and rails, but unspecified source(s) for bus and cars. In fact, after service for some years, the trams in our measurements were clearly much the noisiest: not the quietest, as submitted by NET to the House of Lords in 1993.
These measurements and observations, and those of Foster and Coles (2001) and of Coles and Wildish (2002,b), will be discussed further with respect to environmental impact in the third BCT report in this series (Coles and Wildish, 2002,c).

Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to John Foster for the laboratory analysis of the tram noise from which the equivalent continuous sound energy for a typical tram event was defined. We wish to record our thanks to the MRC Institute of Hearing Research for loan of the sound measuring equipment.

References
Coles, R. and Wildish, L. (2002,b). �Some Ambient and Background Noise Levels in Beeston, Chilwell and Wilford�. Better Community Transport (BCT) Group, Beeston. BCT Report 2/02.
Coles, R. and Wildish, L. (2002,c). �Predicted Acoustic Environmental Impact of Trams in Beeston, Chilwell and Wilford�. Better Community Transport (BCT) Group, Beeston. BCT Report 3/02.
Foster, J.R. and Coles, R.R.A. (2001). �Acoustic Evaluation of Tram Noise�. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham: Internal Technical Report, Series B.
Mott MacDonald (1991). �Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Project. Environmental Statement in Support of the Bill�. Volume 3: Technical Annexes.
Walker, A. (1993). �Documents in Support of Evidence�. The House of Lords Session 1993-94 concerning the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transport Bill.
Index
Background
Derivation of Event Data
Frequency Spectrum of Noise

Additional Measurements
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.153.71

More of the same

January 4 2004, 8:30 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th
(no login)

Re: To, Our Host, Mr. B.J. Mann.

December 31 2003, 5:08 PM

========================================

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:07 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I sayre: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

[Complain about this post]

Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

====================================

Anonymous
(no login)

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

>>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

===============================================

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Violation of terms of use December 31 2003, 5:10 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

====================================

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.153.71

And again

January 4 2004, 8:34 PM

Phoenix Ariz
(no login)

Re: TORIES TARGET CAMERAS December 31 2003, 5:48 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Log In edited by spam poster
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<
Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?
Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?
(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)
>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<
Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".
I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?
And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.
>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<
It may well be unacceptable, but:-
i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.
ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).
>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<
Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<
Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.
Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.
But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<
GO on, give us a clue!
>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<
True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?
>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<
I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?
>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<
Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.
>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<
Where have I done that?
>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<
>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<
Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.
>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<
And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.
Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.
Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.
Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?
Did I say Liberal?
No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

==========================================

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: More on Kyoto / More on Prescott / More on environMentalists December 31 2003, 7:34 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Log In edited by spam poster

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your playmates continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

================================================

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Chips with everything - And An Urgent Message For Leif December 31 2003, 7:37 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Log In edited by spam poster

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your playmates continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

=========================================

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.153.71

Yet More

January 4 2004, 8:44 PM

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: More Bulls**t December 31 2003, 5:06 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

===========================

Dave Bennell
(no login)

Lets see what you ............. January 4 2004, 7:29 PM

You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.
"Artigen" News Tickers:- [World News] [SciTech] [Coolsite] [InfoTech] [Health] [Associaton of British Drivers]
..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Get this on your web site - FREE from FuelProtest.com

Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

Bullsh!t Update - More Camera Carnage In Essex
January 4 2004 at 3:49 PM bogush (Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'up?

Yep!

Again!

Essex, one of the infamous "Trial Counties" and one of the worst Greed Scamera Partnerships had fatality figures of about 90 pa from 1993 to 1997, dipped to around 80 in 1998, mega blipped up to around 110 in 1999.

And, surprise, surprise, was selected for the "Trial" for 2000.

And "achieved" a 19% fall, ie to back to around 90.

Haven't got the figures for 2001 to hand.

But 2002 was 92, and 2003 was 116: higher even than the megablip used "prove" scameras worked!

So they really must, then!

See:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/Content/Search/nfdetail.asp?Brand=eadonline&Category=News&ItemId=IPED01+Jan+2004+20%3A04%3A56%3A673&archive=0

26% rise in county's road deaths

January 2, 2004 07:04

By Sharon Asplin

But the Scameras must be doing something right.

They've had a mega increase in fatalities.

But at least:

An Essex Police spokesman said the increase in road fatalities was "clearly disappointing" and added: "Every death is a tragedy.

"The vast majority are due to an error or misjudgment."

Not speeding any more then!

Another bit of good news:

"The increase is disappointing. On the flip side, we are arresting a person per month for causing death by dangerous driving"

Well, that's alright then!

See also:

�Rigging the Evidence�

And:

Featured Link � includes details of figures for 2000

Motorcycle News � The great GATSO con

Respond to this message

Author Reply
Dave Bennell
(no login)
Have Some January 4 2004, 4:55 PM

Below is the spam that you sent me as part of your email attack against me. The fact that I am not spamming your site does not seem to bother you. As we have seen, you do not care much for the truth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kindly request your "Moderator", Mark Watkins, to return the spam attached below to the originator.

By the way, it's not one of the other "Moderators", one of whom seemed to have an even greater dislike of me than Mark did, before he perversely got "promoted" (poacher turned gamekeeper?), or Honest John himself, as Mark says he knows who it is, but hasn't done the decent thing?

I shall forward all future spam directly to Mark Watkins for return to the originator.

When I have time I shall forward pre New Year's Eve spam.

Apologies if any delay causes any inconvenience to the originator, who I am sure has left in behind on my forum in error.

Of course, you, or Mark, might prefer to report the originator to the appropriate bodies AND OBTAIN AN APPROPRIATE RESULT, or to identify him and provide me with contact details so that I can cut out the middle man.

Oh, and whose favourite put-down is "Dross" (see first grey post below)?

Request to a moderator - Mark (RLBS) Tue 16 Dec 03 17:11

Bogush got himself banned as he well knows. It was for bullying, endless, pedantic, marathon notes of incredibly tedious, repetitive detail involving deliberately misunderstanding anything he didn't like and the hounding of everything anybody said not acknowledging him as champion of all rights [parodying my style?].

And if he wonders why HealthNSafety was banned, its because it took me about two nanoseconds [nanoseconds = weeks?] to work out it was him, and since 1) he's a pain in the butt who drags any noticeboard down to his own tedious level and b) I intensely dislike him and his self-dellusionary kind, I dropped his registration.

He'll try again sooner or later, and then sooner or later we'll realise its him and will pack him off out of here to whinge in his own dirtbox about the injustices of the world again.

I don't need to copy anyone on this explanation, you can read it here and in a little while bogbrush will post it in his conference. He'll also give you the benefit of endless pages of why he is a saint and the rest of the world is out to get him.

I post this since you asked, not for any assistance to Bogush. I couldn't give a flying wotsit [we know what he means, clearly he doesn't meet his own "high" standards] what bogbrush or his sycophants think, whichever noticeboard they are in.

I'll also confirm that I do know who posted him the spam, and it was not you (nor me). He wasn't banned for anything other than his own incessant inability to moderate his behaviour.

Nobody can get anyone banned from here other than themselves.

Finally, don't rise to it or to him. His only desire in life is to get a reaction and he will do whatever it takes. He's got one from you and now he's got one from me. Lets not give him any more.

Dross
December 31 2003 at 5:05 PM Anonymous (no login)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some rubbish leaked on to the BBC site. I'm not sure which thread it belong to so I've posted it around.

Current Topic - Dross

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: What Planet Do The Anti Car Brigade Live On? January 2 2004, 10:08 AM

Found this rubbish looking for a good home. It'll be happier here - where all worn-out arguments come to die:

You are logged in as Georgeda Drew << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Global warming Phoenix Ariz - 43rd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:53
What, exactly, are the "liberals trying to say?
>>The glaciers are now retreating cutting off the water supply to vast areas, leaving many their fields to go derelict. This means there isn't enough food or fuel for the harsh winter (-20C now) so half the population have to walk 200 miles to the roadhead and survive the winter away from their homelands.<<
>>Why are the glaciers retreating? because of global warming.<<
Like a few thousand years ago in the UK.
So what are the "liberals" saying?
That there was an evil capitalist industrial-military complex in prehistoric Britain?
That we had cars then?
Industry even? [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 42nd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:29
It doesn't matter how much you rant and rave, it doesn't change the truth though your friend the "moderator" might try to hide it. Why was the post refering to this deleted, and with no explanatory email:-
>>The Mouse's !P *ddress appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
If the moderators feel the need to censor a reasonable and requested response to an unfounded allegation, would they be so kind as to delete the unfounded allegations too.
I can see why Ol' Bogey got so wound up with the "moderators" here.
Oh, and don't forget:
>>Otherwise explain how, in the middle of tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this forum, reference to your log in appeared once. I suppose that you will claim that it was a very cunning spammer, playing very clever games.<<
>>Rather than just making a mistake.<<
I think that those two points are more than adequate responses to your accusations. If you feel your denials have any merit feel free to furnish evidence.
Put up, or shut up, to use your phraseology. [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 41st post - 1 Jan 2004 21:07
>>I was making the point that the gun crime figures, in England, have risen in proportion to the drug crime figures.....The use of firearms, in England, directly reflects the American attitude towards guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Since the turn of the Century?
The 19th/20th Century?
Or are you saying that:-
>>the drug crime figures.....guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Just happen to perfectly reflect the rise in UK Firearms "Controls" too.
Since the 19th/20th Century?
But are totally unrelated.
Now I see why Ol' Bogey thinks that the Beeb contributors haven't a clue about any subject they pontificate on. [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Speed Traps December 31 2003, 7:39 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More Bulls**t December 31 2003, 5:06 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: The Pros And Cons Of Scameras December 31 2003, 5:40 PM

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Chips with everything - And An Urgent Message For Leif December 31 2003, 7:37 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More on Kyoto / More on Prescott / More on environMentalists December 31 2003, 7:34 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Phoenix Ariz
(no login)

Not the real PA

Re: TORIES TARGET CAMERAS December 31 2003, 5:48 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<
Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?
Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?
(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)
>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<
Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".
I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?
And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.
>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<
It may well be unacceptable, but:-
i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.
ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).
>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<
Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<
Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.
Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.
But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<
GO on, give us a clue!
>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<
True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?
>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<
I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?
>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<
Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.
>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<
Where have I done that?
>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<
>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<
Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.
>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<
And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.
Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.
Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.
Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?
Did I say Liberal?
No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of terms of use December 31 2003, 5:10 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:07 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I sayre: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

[Complain about this post]

Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:09 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

>>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th
(no login)
Re: To, Our Host, Mr. B.J. Mann. December 31 2003, 5:08 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm January 4 2004, 6:48 PM

Seems like the Speek Kills, Kill Your Speed, Pro Greed Scamera Crowd have upped their game.

They've gone from no reasoned argument.

To a lot of reasoned argument.

Current Topic - Bullsh!t Update - More Camera Carnage In Essex Respond to this message

Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof. However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious". The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner. All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged

============

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.228.115

Another Mega Spam from the Spammers

January 5 2004, 9:17 PM

Dave Bennell (no login)

Lets see what you ............. January 4 2004, 7:29 PM

You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.
"Artigen" News Tickers:- [World News] [SciTech] [Coolsite] [InfoTech] [Health] [Associaton of British Drivers]
..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Get this on your web site - FREE from FuelProtest.com

Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

Bullsh!t Update - More Camera Carnage In Essex
January 4 2004 at 3:49 PM bogush (Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'up?

Yep!

Again!

Essex, one of the infamous "Trial Counties" and one of the worst Greed Scamera Partnerships had fatality figures of about 90 pa from 1993 to 1997, dipped to around 80 in 1998, mega blipped up to around 110 in 1999.

And, surprise, surprise, was selected for the "Trial" for 2000.

And "achieved" a 19% fall, ie to back to around 90.

Haven't got the figures for 2001 to hand.

But 2002 was 92, and 2003 was 116: higher even than the megablip used "prove" scameras worked!

So they really must, then!

See:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/Content/Search/nfdetail.asp?Brand=eadonline&Category=News&ItemId=IPED01+Jan+2004+20%3A04%3A56%3A673&archive=0

26% rise in county's road deaths

January 2, 2004 07:04

By Sharon Asplin

But the Scameras must be doing something right.

They've had a mega increase in fatalities.

But at least:

An Essex Police spokesman said the increase in road fatalities was "clearly disappointing" and added: "Every death is a tragedy.

"The vast majority are due to an error or misjudgment."

Not speeding any more then!

Another bit of good news:

"The increase is disappointing. On the flip side, we are arresting a person per month for causing death by dangerous driving"

Well, that's alright then!

See also:

�Rigging the Evidence�

And:

Featured Link � includes details of figures for 2000

Motorcycle News � The great GATSO con

Respond to this message

Author Reply
Dave Bennell
(no login)
Have Some January 4 2004, 4:55 PM

Below is the spam that you sent me as part of your email attack against me. The fact that I am not spamming your site does not seem to bother you. As we have seen, you do not care much for the truth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kindly request your "Moderator", Mark Watkins, to return the spam attached below to the originator.

By the way, it's not one of the other "Moderators", one of whom seemed to have an even greater dislike of me than Mark did, before he perversely got "promoted" (poacher turned gamekeeper?), or Honest John himself, as Mark says he knows who it is, but hasn't done the decent thing?

I shall forward all future spam directly to Mark Watkins for return to the originator.

When I have time I shall forward pre New Year's Eve spam.

Apologies if any delay causes any inconvenience to the originator, who I am sure has left in behind on my forum in error.

Of course, you, or Mark, might prefer to report the originator to the appropriate bodies AND OBTAIN AN APPROPRIATE RESULT, or to identify him and provide me with contact details so that I can cut out the middle man.

Oh, and whose favourite put-down is "Dross" (see first grey post below)?

Request to a moderator - Mark (RLBS) Tue 16 Dec 03 17:11

Bogush got himself banned as he well knows. It was for bullying, endless, pedantic, marathon notes of incredibly tedious, repetitive detail involving deliberately misunderstanding anything he didn't like and the hounding of everything anybody said not acknowledging him as champion of all rights [parodying my style?].

And if he wonders why HealthNSafety was banned, its because it took me about two nanoseconds [nanoseconds = weeks?] to work out it was him, and since 1) he's a pain in the butt who drags any noticeboard down to his own tedious level and b) I intensely dislike him and his self-dellusionary kind, I dropped his registration.

He'll try again sooner or later, and then sooner or later we'll realise its him and will pack him off out of here to whinge in his own dirtbox about the injustices of the world again.

I don't need to copy anyone on this explanation, you can read it here and in a little while bogbrush will post it in his conference. He'll also give you the benefit of endless pages of why he is a saint and the rest of the world is out to get him.

I post this since you asked, not for any assistance to Bogush. I couldn't give a flying wotsit [we know what he means, clearly he doesn't meet his own "high" standards] what bogbrush or his sycophants think, whichever noticeboard they are in.

I'll also confirm that I do know who posted him the spam, and it was not you (nor me). He wasn't banned for anything other than his own incessant inability to moderate his behaviour.

Nobody can get anyone banned from here other than themselves.

Finally, don't rise to it or to him. His only desire in life is to get a reaction and he will do whatever it takes. He's got one from you and now he's got one from me. Lets not give him any more.

Dross
December 31 2003 at 5:05 PM Anonymous (no login)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some rubbish leaked on to the BBC site. I'm not sure which thread it belong to so I've posted it around.

Current Topic - Dross

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: What Planet Do The Anti Car Brigade Live On? January 2 2004, 10:08 AM

Found this rubbish looking for a good home. It'll be happier here - where all worn-out arguments come to die:

You are logged in as Georgeda Drew << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Global warming Phoenix Ariz - 43rd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:53
What, exactly, are the "liberals trying to say?
>>The glaciers are now retreating cutting off the water supply to vast areas, leaving many their fields to go derelict. This means there isn't enough food or fuel for the harsh winter (-20C now) so half the population have to walk 200 miles to the roadhead and survive the winter away from their homelands.<<
>>Why are the glaciers retreating? because of global warming.<<
Like a few thousand years ago in the UK.
So what are the "liberals" saying?
That there was an evil capitalist industrial-military complex in prehistoric Britain?
That we had cars then?
Industry even? [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 42nd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:29
It doesn't matter how much you rant and rave, it doesn't change the truth though your friend the "moderator" might try to hide it. Why was the post refering to this deleted, and with no explanatory email:-
>>The Mouse's !P *ddress appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
If the moderators feel the need to censor a reasonable and requested response to an unfounded allegation, would they be so kind as to delete the unfounded allegations too.
I can see why Ol' Bogey got so wound up with the "moderators" here.
Oh, and don't forget:
>>Otherwise explain how, in the middle of tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this forum, reference to your log in appeared once. I suppose that you will claim that it was a very cunning spammer, playing very clever games.<<
>>Rather than just making a mistake.<<
I think that those two points are more than adequate responses to your accusations. If you feel your denials have any merit feel free to furnish evidence.
Put up, or shut up, to use your phraseology. [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 41st post - 1 Jan 2004 21:07
>>I was making the point that the gun crime figures, in England, have risen in proportion to the drug crime figures.....The use of firearms, in England, directly reflects the American attitude towards guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Since the turn of the Century?
The 19th/20th Century?
Or are you saying that:-
>>the drug crime figures.....guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Just happen to perfectly reflect the rise in UK Firearms "Controls" too.
Since the 19th/20th Century?
But are totally unrelated.
Now I see why Ol' Bogey thinks that the Beeb contributors haven't a clue about any subject they pontificate on. [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Speed Traps December 31 2003, 7:39 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More Bulls**t December 31 2003, 5:06 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: The Pros And Cons Of Scameras December 31 2003, 5:40 PM

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Chips with everything - And An Urgent Message For Leif December 31 2003, 7:37 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More on Kyoto / More on Prescott / More on environMentalists December 31 2003, 7:34 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Phoenix Ariz
(no login)

Not the real PA

Re: TORIES TARGET CAMERAS December 31 2003, 5:48 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<
Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?
Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?
(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)
>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<
Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".
I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?
And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.
>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<
It may well be unacceptable, but:-
i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.
ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).
>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<
Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<
Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.
Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.
But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<
GO on, give us a clue!
>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<
True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?
>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<
I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?
>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<
Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.
>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<
Where have I done that?
>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<
>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<
Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.
>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<
And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.
Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.
Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.
Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?
Did I say Liberal?
No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of terms of use December 31 2003, 5:10 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:07 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I sayre: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

[Complain about this post]

Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:09 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

>>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th
(no login)
Re: To, Our Host, Mr. B.J. Mann. December 31 2003, 5:08 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

bogush
(Premier Login bogush)
Forum Owner
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm January 4 2004, 6:48 PM

Seems like the Speek Kills, Kill Your Speed, Pro Greed Scamera Crowd have upped their game.

They've gone from no reasoned argument.

To a lot of reasoned argument.

Current Topic - Bullsh!t Update - More Camera Carnage In Essex Respond to this message

Next Topic >> Return to Forum Index

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................

Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof. However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious". The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner. All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.77.73.10

Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

January 6 2004, 10:37 PM

Give them an inch and they take a mile!

Anonymous(no login)

Re: A notice to users January 6 2004, 10:19 PM

This dross was hopelessly homesick. So I've brought it back;

re: How Many "liberals" can sit...........................

Anonymous(no login)

Re: Liberals, the Scourge of the Land January 6 2004, 10:22 PM

Like rabbits it breeds:

re: How Many "liberals" can...................

Anonymous(no login)

Re: Love Letter From Leif January 6 2004, 10:20 PM

It's amazing how rubbish breeds more rubbish once it gets home and is happy:

re: How Many "liberals" can............

...............sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 75th post - 6 Jan 2004 21:15
>>Bogush: I suspect that you now understand why the BBC banned you twice.<>No I have never posted as P.Rick, or Orville, or Anonymous and variants. Also one or two posts as "Jack Russell" and "Leif" are from someone unknown to me.<<
But you have admitted:
>>Bogush. I see that someone has said that they will post nonsense on your site until you leave the BBC. I will do the same. Understood?
In the meantime, I think the following are me:
I will get lots of abuse from Bogush et al
Bogush's love child
Jolly Green Giant
Fried Woodlark
Septic Tank
Pete Bog
leif
Jack Russell
The voice of freedom <<
According to Ol' Bogey.
And you have admitted to having:
>>"returned to your site using the logon "Leif" a small fraction of the spam that you sent to my email account".<<
Or, according to Ol' Bogey, you spammed nine new "threads" with some emails that he sent to you for return to the originating spammer.
No doubt because you have said:
>>Bogush. I see that someone has said that they will post nonsense on your site until you leave the BBC. I will do the same. Understood?<<
And:
>>There's at least two of us doing this, until you get the message you half-wit.<<
Well, it's not rocket science.
That's why he probably sussed you out in the end.
But I can't suss where he has repeated false claim, never mind libelled you.
In fact you seem to have confessed to everything. [Complain about this post]

re: How Many "liberals" can sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 74th post - 5 Jan 2004 21:59
>>Sorry,Richard, its not "The American way" being discussed here but it is "Bogush J Mann"( aka Phonix Ariz )way of pontificating.<<
>>See how he has flooded the board with his "Thoughts of Chairman Mann". This is what we have to put up with.<<
It may, or may not, be the "Thoughts of Chairman Mann", but in case you hadn't noticed, our visitor made a request, to which I responded as helpfully as I could.
And this is your "contribution" to the discussion.
As ever. [Complain about this post]
re: Ethical Trading? Ranty Nut Cutlet Sink Plunger - 8th post - 4 Jan 2004 19:26
Oooh Mr Bogush, is it really you? I was so missing your insightful thought provoking commentary.
We should allow hunting with dogs of students, the unemployed and other skivers. That would solve our problems wouldn't it?
I hope you are still going fast, very fast. Do you really drive a bus? I bet it is rear wheel drive!
Engage warp drive Mr Warf.
Whoosh. [Complain about this post]

re: How Many "liberals" can sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 73rd post - 4 Jan 2004 17:21
If you changed the names most, if not all, of your post, would apply here Mr Russell.
Your closing statement, or rather the inaccuracy it contains, says all that needs to be said about this country, and the "liberals" running it:-
>>To be serious, I am proud that this country has a more just social system, and likes to take care of the less fortunate in society. Still, we have a lot of room for improvement.<<
No, it squanders what was preserved by the blood of the older generations, and built up on the sweat and toil of them and their children, on the "less fortunate" abroad, and the more anti social at home.
Whilst the people who died to preserve your freedom are dishonoured, and their survivors cannot get treatment or decent pensions from the NHS and "Welfare" State, and their children and grandchildren cannot get the education that their taxes and National "Insurance" contributions paid for, the "liberals" are creating a "socialist" PC "utopia" for all the non contributors, ranging from the Establishment, public "servants", "elected" representatives, the "meeja", through the professional students, claimants and real criminals, to the world's chancers and crooks who prevent the real oppressed from gaining sanctuary on these shores.
Just as your outsiders view of the States might be an eye-opener for Mr Wassner, the truth he speaks obviously hurts and for equally obvious reasons. [Complain about this post]

re: How Many "liberals" can sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 72nd post - 4 Jan 2004 16:07
Has a post of his been deleted then?
What are you refering to Jack, old bean?
Seems a touch unfriendly, rude even.
Certainly in response to his last viewable post.
Not very welcoming, and surely in breach of at least one house rule, if not several! [Complain about this post]

re: How Many "liberals" can sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 69th post - 3 Jan 2004 22:01
And then we have stealth taxes:
Ranging �5 Billion per annum sneaked out of pension funds, replacement of one set of allowances with another (the replacement conveniently coming in a year afterwards, and if you forget to keep your claim details up to date you get fined!), not only road taxes (which don't go on roads, but taxes for not going on the roads, taxes for putting kids through school, and now they propose a tax for taking them out of school............
The list is endless! [Complain about this post]

re: Ethical Trading? Phoenix Ariz - 69th post - 3 Jan 2004 21:46
But who pulled the plug on the original poster?
Not up to your old tricks are you? [Complain about this post]

re: Ethical Trading? Phoenix Ariz - 68th post - 3 Jan 2004 21:45
Ah, Jack, always new you were a Telegraph man to the core! [Complain about this post]

re: How Many "liberals" can sit on an Phoenix Ariz - 67th post - 3 Jan 2004 21:43
Of course, the 350% levy on fuel comes out of taxed income, and is only one of many motoring related taxes.
We have income tax, of course. Also National Insurance, which was supposed to pay for things like Health and Welfare, but, again, is not ringfenced, and just gets swallowed into the pot. And then there is Employers National Insurance, which is a payroll tax. And, of course, Corporate Taxes. Purchase Tax (Value Added Tax) is levied at 17.5%. And there is an annual local Council tax, probably another �1,000 out of taxed income for an average property.
You wouldn't think there was anything left out of a worker's wage. Hardly surprising when something like a quarter of the population is on the public payroll (not counting welfare claimants).
But do you see any public service? They cut back the fire service, close down proper traffic police departments, you have to take your own trash out to the road, and bring the bin back after the refuse truck has been unlike the old days, hospital wards are understaffed, and so losing even more staff, services like cleaning are outsourced and apparently you now have one cleaner looking after three wards and facilities, whereas you used to have two per ward, and more for the facilities.............
But you do get lots of people making sure that no one offends anyone (from a select list). For example I heard a rumour of a police officers having to ask permission of non Christian colleagues before writing out Christmas cards for fear of giving offence, and the Government has switched to special "inclusive" non Christian cards!
There are any number of facilitators, co-ordinators, outreach workers, "project" managers and the like to make sure that everything runs politically correctly.
In the most "liberal" fashion of course! [Complain about this post]

bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
81.79.207.240

Nearly Forgot:

January 10 2004, 11:01 AM

Bullsh!t Update - More Camera Carnage In Essex

Dave Bennell (no login)

Have Some January 4 2004, 4:55 PM

Below is the spam that you sent me as part of your email attack against me. The fact that I am not spamming your site does not seem to bother you. As we have seen, you do not care much for the truth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kindly request your "Moderator", Mark Watkins, to return the spam attached below to the originator.

By the way, it's not one of the other "Moderators", one of whom seemed to have an even greater dislike of me than Mark did, before he perversely got "promoted" (poacher turned gamekeeper?), or Honest John himself, as Mark says he knows who it is, but hasn't done the decent thing?

I shall forward all future spam directly to Mark Watkins for return to the originator.

When I have time I shall forward pre New Year's Eve spam.

Apologies if any delay causes any inconvenience to the originator, who I am sure has left in behind on my forum in error.

Of course, you, or Mark, might prefer to report the originator to the appropriate bodies AND OBTAIN AN APPROPRIATE RESULT, or to identify him and provide me with contact details so that I can cut out the middle man.

Oh, and whose favourite put-down is "Dross" (see first grey post below)?

Request to a moderator - Mark (RLBS) Tue 16 Dec 03 17:11

Bogush got himself banned as he well knows. It was for bullying, endless, pedantic, marathon notes of incredibly tedious, repetitive detail involving deliberately misunderstanding anything he didn't like and the hounding of everything anybody said not acknowledging him as champion of all rights [parodying my style?].

And if he wonders why HealthNSafety was banned, its because it took me about two nanoseconds [nanoseconds = weeks?] to work out it was him, and since 1) he's a pain in the butt who drags any noticeboard down to his own tedious level and b) I intensely dislike him and his self-dellusionary kind, I dropped his registration.

He'll try again sooner or later, and then sooner or later we'll realise its him and will pack him off out of here to whinge in his own dirtbox about the injustices of the world again.

I don't need to copy anyone on this explanation, you can read it here and in a little while bogbrush will post it in his conference. He'll also give you the benefit of endless pages of why he is a saint and the rest of the world is out to get him.

I post this since you asked, not for any assistance to Bogush. I couldn't give a flying wotsit [we know what he means, clearly he doesn't meet his own "high" standards] what bogbrush or his sycophants think, whichever noticeboard they are in.

I'll also confirm that I do know who posted him the spam, and it was not you (nor me). He wasn't banned for anything other than his own incessant inability to moderate his behaviour.

Nobody can get anyone banned from here other than themselves.

Finally, don't rise to it or to him. His only desire in life is to get a reaction and he will do whatever it takes. He's got one from you and now he's got one from me. Lets not give him any more.

Dross
December 31 2003 at 5:05 PM Anonymous (no login)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some rubbish leaked on to the BBC site. I'm not sure which thread it belong to so I've posted it around.

Current Topic - Dross

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: What Planet Do The Anti Car Brigade Live On? January 2 2004, 10:08 AM

Found this rubbish looking for a good home. It'll be happier here - where all worn-out arguments come to die:

You are logged in as Georgeda Drew << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Global warming Phoenix Ariz - 43rd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:53
What, exactly, are the "liberals trying to say?
>>The glaciers are now retreating cutting off the water supply to vast areas, leaving many their fields to go derelict. This means there isn't enough food or fuel for the harsh winter (-20C now) so half the population have to walk 200 miles to the roadhead and survive the winter away from their homelands.<<
>>Why are the glaciers retreating? because of global warming.<<
Like a few thousand years ago in the UK.
So what are the "liberals" saying?
That there was an evil capitalist industrial-military complex in prehistoric Britain?
That we had cars then?
Industry even? [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 42nd post - 1 Jan 2004 21:29
It doesn't matter how much you rant and rave, it doesn't change the truth though your friend the "moderator" might try to hide it. Why was the post refering to this deleted, and with no explanatory email:-
>>The Mouse's !P *ddress appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
If the moderators feel the need to censor a reasonable and requested response to an unfounded allegation, would they be so kind as to delete the unfounded allegations too.
I can see why Ol' Bogey got so wound up with the "moderators" here.
Oh, and don't forget:
>>Otherwise explain how, in the middle of tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this forum, reference to your log in appeared once. I suppose that you will claim that it was a very cunning spammer, playing very clever games.<<
>>Rather than just making a mistake.<<
I think that those two points are more than adequate responses to your accusations. If you feel your denials have any merit feel free to furnish evidence.
Put up, or shut up, to use your phraseology. [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 41st post - 1 Jan 2004 21:07
>>I was making the point that the gun crime figures, in England, have risen in proportion to the drug crime figures.....The use of firearms, in England, directly reflects the American attitude towards guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Since the turn of the Century?
The 19th/20th Century?
Or are you saying that:-
>>the drug crime figures.....guns as portrayed in the films and TV programs imported from America.<<
Just happen to perfectly reflect the rise in UK Firearms "Controls" too.
Since the 19th/20th Century?
But are totally unrelated.
Now I see why Ol' Bogey thinks that the Beeb contributors haven't a clue about any subject they pontificate on. [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Speed Traps December 31 2003, 7:39 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More Bulls**t December 31 2003, 5:06 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: The Pros And Cons Of Scameras December 31 2003, 5:40 PM

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 35th post - 31 Dec 2003 17:42
It wouldn't be you that's started spamming Ol' Bogey's board with reams of cut and paste from here, repeatedly repeated, again, would it?
Or has Dave Bennell had the sense to cut below his log in this time? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Chips with everything - And An Urgent Message For Leif December 31 2003, 7:37 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: More on Kyoto / More on Prescott / More on environMentalists December 31 2003, 7:34 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.
Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 38th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:40
>>I too have the feeling that some people are wary of posting to this forum.<<
>>Bogush has put together information from my posts to find my real identity, and has then launched an attack on me and my home email account. This does not create the sense of a friendly place to discuss issues does it?<<
>>Are people likely to feel that they can express views that Bogush does not like?<<
Hardly surprising that they are wary with you spreading such rumours around.
Didn't the Hosts here point out that there was no chance of Ol' Bogey hacking into anything and finding personal information. And yet you and your s continue to cast asperions on his activities.
And how could he get the information from your posts.
I did some more detective work and found that you give your website details on that Backdoor place you frequent. And your website gives your email address.
Mystery solved.
And Ol' Bogey reckons you have a Ph.D.!?
Eveidence, if it were ever needed, of the dumbing down of the education system! [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 37th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:31
I also note that Ol' Bogey has been upset by tens of thousands of words of cut and paste spam from this board again flooding his forum and has posted a message to Mr Leif that he will be forwarding it all to him for return to the originator.
Perhaps you had better forewarn him. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: What is the point of Moderators? Phoenix Ariz - 36th post - 31 Dec 2003 19:27
I take it that you are refering to me again.
A quick bit of my own detective work quickly found the fillowing:
>>The Mouse's IP address appears to belong to a cable modem in Manchester.<<
>>The cut&paste spam from the beeb site includes the phrase "You are logged in as Dave Bennell" (though I couldn't be bothered to work out the original source, so perhaps that's not news ...)<<
Clearly Ol' Bogeys "detective" has tracked down one source to Manchester, and the other he didn't bother tracking down.
The other, which he didn't bother tracking down, not being the Manchester one.
And being the Bennell one.
I think that you owe everyone an apology Mr Bennell.
Is it any wonder you get so few people bothering with this site.
I note that you have driven Mr Wassner to his forum. [reply] [Complain about this post]

Phoenix Ariz
(no login)

Not the real PA

Re: TORIES TARGET CAMERAS December 31 2003, 5:48 PM

You are logged in as Phoenix Ariz << Edited by anonymous spammer.

Where I Live England Messageboards

Board Status: Open for business

The views expressed in this community area are those of members of the public and, unless specifically stated, not those of the BBC. If you believe anything on this page to be in breach of our House Rules, please click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<
Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?
Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?
(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)
>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<
Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".
I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?
And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.
>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<
It may well be unacceptable, but:-
i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.
ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).
>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<
Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<
Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.
Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.
But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<
GO on, give us a clue!
>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<
True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?
>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<
I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?
>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<
Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.
>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<
Where have I done that?
>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<
>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<
Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.
>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<
And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.
Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.
Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.
Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?
Did I say Liberal?
No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of terms of use December 31 2003, 5:10 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:07 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I sayre: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

[Complain about this post]

Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Anonymous
(no login)
Re: Violation of copyright December 31 2003, 5:09 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

>>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th
(no login)
Re: To, Our Host, Mr. B.J. Mann. December 31 2003, 5:08 PM

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 34th post - 31 Dec 2003 15:23
>>George Painter once said in a posting to this site that you have a personality problem. I agree.<>You think that your postings are rejected because of your political stance, and that this is evidence that the BBC are biased. On the contrary, the BBC allow almost any opinion to be expressed, with the exception of racism and the like.<<

Were Mr Wassner's recent postings removed because of racism and the like?

Were Ol' Bogey's postings removed because of racism and the like?

(In fact, did he not complain about racism, and get nowhere/banned for it!)

>>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse.<<

Ah! You mean like:- "you have a personality problem".

I take it that Mr Painter's posting was immediateluy removed, before you even had a chance to read it, just like the posting that I am responding to?

And I suppose that when you say that >>The condition is that the views must be expressed in a manner that does not include personal abuse<< it accounts for posts not being removed because they are purely personal abuse, rather than merely views expressed in a manner that includes personal abuse.

>>If you say "Climate change is not a fact", that is acceptable. If you say "People who support the climate change scam are morons", that is unacceptable.<<

It may well be unacceptable, but:-

i) Where has Ol' Bogey ever done that.

ii) Is that not what his detractors have done almost exclusively (although I will admit I've not been right back through the archive yet - feel free to correct me here if you can find any evidence here).

>>Those people who suggest that you are the best friend the speed camera merchants could have are quite right.<<

Again a sign of a failed argument (and an insult). >>Regarding whinging, I seem to recall that you were banned from the Honest John forum, and subsequently the moderator stated that he could not stand, amongst other things, your endless whinging.<<

Not I. But I have read the links Ol' Bogey has helpfully provided.

Pity that the readers here can only see one side of the story.

But I doubt if you would agree. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: Gun Crime/Arm Police Phoenix Ariz - 33rd post - 31 Dec 2003 15:08
>>Bogush:<>I chose not to use my real name for sound reasons,<<

GO on, give us a clue!

>>but I make no pretence, unlike you.<<

True. I've been searching Ol' Bogeys site, and it seems that you've admitted to several aliases, some of which, I believe, you've also used here. At the same time. Did you "make no pretence" here when you broke the multiple log in rule?

>>Now that you know my email address, you are spamming it.<<

I've not returned any spam for a week or two. Are you sure you haven't offended someone else too?

>>Network 54 recommend that you only allow people with logons to post to your forum.<<

Not mine, and if it was, I might well restrict access and use censorship. But, as I understand it, Ol' Bogey is a man of principle.

>>I have seen the aggressive way that you attack people when they express opinions that you do not like. Perhaps if you had learned how to engage in a discussion in a mature manner, and respect that others might disagree, then you would not have been banned from various web sites.<<

Where have I done that?

>> >>"Just shows what the lentil munchers definition of "liberal" is."<< <<

>>Hardly a constructive comment and a good example of what I mean.<<

Or, rather, a perfect example of what I mean.

>>When you hate what someone says you resort to personal abuse.<<

And when someone has to come back with such an accusation, it shows that they have absolutely no counter argument. I can see why you got Ol' Bogey so wound up. And why he got you so rattled.

Let's see if I've got this right:- you two have an argument, he, allegedly, resorts to personal abuse. You merely say you want them banned.

Well, you were right:- When I hate what someone says I resort to personal abuse.

Could that be why Ol' Bogey resorted to it too?

Did I say Liberal?

No, I said "liberal". [reply] [Complain about this post]

Current Topic - Jack Russell's/Leif's/Orville's/P.Rick's/etc Spam Thread

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Return to Forum Index