Nuxx:A20c6841-bf94-4c96-ab2e-33a19bce3fd2@t8g2000vbd.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!t8g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:52:38 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>  <3fd9f5fc-ab1e-4b80-8141-f8ca23c707d8@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> <1b69b10d-4e22-4938-8067-da805b1a0fb7@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>  <143b0757-6529-4992-ba89-f3bbe3aa2fee@s18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>    <74d5df0d-37f8-43a7-a7d9-b5b6c6ec7934@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <546405783321530292.588814%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net>  <1jxyu27.15xikt51j2a3qcN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  Lines: 29 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299869558 31026 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2011 18:52:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:52:38 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t8g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3542 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38790

On Mar 11, 4:12=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > I have an acquaintance A who has had issues with someone B who disliked > the fact that A's opinion on some matters was amenable to an > interpretation which B found ideologically unacceptable (it was in > respect of the etiology of an illness). > > The trouble required two people, one of whom was doing their job as a > professional and trying to advance medical knowledge of an obscure > disease, the other was trying to prevent any conclusion other than their > favoured one. B took to attacking A, primarily via the internet. B also > took to attacking others (C et. al.), again primarily via the internet > (which is B's primary means of expression, I believe).

Sounds uncannily similar to your harassment of Paul Smith, because he showed that speed cameras killed people, and you didn't like that because of your anti-car ideology and your belief that speed cameras were a great way of discouraging and bullying drivers.

> B was convicted of criminal harassment and is now subject to a curfew > enforced by electronic tag and an injunction.

A shame that didn't happen to you then. Also isn't it strange how it hasn't happened to me either, despite my supposed "harassment" of you? Maybe you've been inventing that to get sympathy? If you really were getting persecuted by me then why would you keep making unprovoked jibes in my direction all the time? Any more "phone calls" since you last alleged getting some about 3 years ago?