Nuxx:Fc306664-c03b-4e72-96c7-5e2341199ae2@w9g2000prg.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!w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM Moderator Moderated Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:35:15 -0800 (PST) References:   <7tKdncOIfPe-MsLQnZ2dnUVZ7rGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>     Lines: 100 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 1298338515 30727 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2011 01:35:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6559 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37757

On Feb 20, 12:52=A0am, Nobby Anderson  wrote: > Awww, Nuxxy, still repeating the same old stuff? =A0No answer to what I > wrote then, eh? =A0I guess other's inconvenient truths are way to much fo= r > you, eh, so thank goodness for [crap snipped] which is another thing > you've picked up from me. =A0I do have a real influence on your young > life don't I?

"crap snipped" (with quotes) gives 10300 results on Google. So sorry, I didn't realise you had the monopoly on it. BTW you're copying me when you use the word "I".

15-0, you have to admit (but you won't because you're not even remotely sporting, as we shall see...you'd rather bite your own leg off than concede in any way, shape or form, especially to the likes of me...that's right, isn't it?)

> How is the legal action you threatened agains Chapman, by the way? =A0Or > are you denying you threatened that, too?

Not at all, and you don't know what might be happening, do you? It's none of yours, is it? (However worked up you might get about the subject....)

> Do you still deny it was you who > supposedly rang him in the middle of the night, or is the lack of the > legal action you so vociferously threatened an admission that you did, > in fact, make the phone calls he accused you of?

I made no such calls. Clear enough for you? How many more times would you like me to say it?

Do you still deny that it was you who made the "St. Michael Chapman" post? Err, yes, I assume you do, because why the hell would you have a different response this time all of a sudden when nothing's changed? Honestly, the standard of your posts is declining markedly from what was never exactly a high point. You need to improve please.

> If you look back, and I know you won't be able to resist, you'll find > I've answered your Lou Knee question more than once, but I guess you > didn't like the answer.

Well I do apologise as I must have missed your answer. Please do point me towards it. I know you've said that you don't *know* whether he posted as Lou Knee, and that you don't *care*, but I don't recall you ever having said whether you *think* he posted as Lou Knee. Just to show that it's not a difficult question to answer if the will and honesty is there, Tom Crispin recently answered the same question with "I would say that it is highly likely".

Now I have this crazy suspicion that you think much the same, but you don't want to admit thinking that, because that would be "going against" Chapman, and you consider Chapman to be "on your side". But you do see that this is yet another example of you doing your damnedest to avoid an Inconvenient Truth? You find it inconvenient that you think Chapman posted as Lou Knee, so you're almost completely incapable of being honest about it. I genuinely find that very sad, especially since you hold yourself up as such a shining example of how one should conduct oneself.

Prove me wrong. Do you think Chapman posted as Lou Knee? Can you overcome the urge to worm your way out of providing a true answer that you'd rather not provide? Or will you attempt to use your usual scornful, patronising, tired, predictable, bitterly sarcastic, misspelt "venom" (you wish) as a cover for not doing so?

> I bet you won't answer any of mine though, kiddo.

Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of that?

> Nob

Oh look, repeating what I say. Have you noticed that almost every time you or Chapman accuse someone of something, you're guilty of exactly the same thing to at least the same degree?

Now that I've answered all your questions, let's see how many of mine you duck. My money's on a "clever" one-paragraph mega-avoidance of the "You mean you typed out all that crap?" variety.

(Oh BTW, have you read the ravings of "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"? I thought you might want to make friends with him...he's an unpleasant homophobe with an inflated opinion of himself as well, and he'll be able to give you an additional excuse to avoid addressing points properly, namely quoting Bible verses...you could pass on some of your tips about how you wind people like me up so magnificently and effortlessly...I think you could learn a lot from each other!  The only thing is that I think he might just be putting it all on for a laugh, whereas I think you're the real deal, which as I say, makes me genuinely sad.)

You have to admit, I've beaten you hands down this time. (But you won't admit it, because you don't have the grace to ever concede an inch. Oh, but hang on, I know what would really take me by surprise: if you said something like "Yeah Nuxxy, you're quite right, I just can't respond adequately to your rapier-like wit, you've destroyed me"...you know, agreeing with me sarcastically!  Bet you never thought of that...it would be a first for you to say something like that, wouldn't it?  D'oh, another one of your stock responses preempted...where you gonna run now Nob?)