List

In article <0de4485e-3ca5-4af1-9a04-0374ad4f35a9
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Sir Jeremy
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On 15 Feb, 15:58, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If, OTOH, you were just attacking him to get back at his son for
pointing out that Smith was pushing dubious figures (as he was,
according to many, and I concur) then it just shows you to be a rather
sad individual.

On the grounds that only "rather sad individuals" make personal
attacks on people who can't defend themselves

Smith was given every opportunity to respond to this criticism when he
was alive, and failed to do so in any satisfactory way. His followers
are still pushing the same flawed arguments, but rather than backing
them up with spurious claims they just tell critics not to speak ill of
the dead. What a bunch of stupid pathetic tossers they are.

x-no-archive:Adrian Godwin said:

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:Andy Leighton wrote:
Oops I think I may have just Godwinned this thread.
Que?

en.wikipedia.orgGodwin's lawOpen ↗

(no relation)

Thank you Sir.

In article said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:52:00 -0800 (PST), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I'll start attacking your late father and see how you like
that.

I'm not aware that he trolled Usenet, made a career out of lying, or
facilitated the harassment of those who disagreed with him. Do feel
free to provide any evidence you have of his doing so, though.

It also seems unlikely that any of Smith's close relatives are actually
reading this. If they were, then possibly the argument that respect for
their feelings of grief would make this a bad time to point out just what
a [censored] Smith was would have some validity, instead of being a pathetic
excuse to defend his behaviour.

(Alan Braggins) said:

In article said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:52:00 -0800 (PST), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I'll start attacking your late father and see how you like
that.

Quoted message said:

I'm not aware that he trolled Usenet, made a career out of lying, or
facilitated the harassment of those who disagreed with him. Do feel
free to provide any evidence you have of his doing so, though.

It also seems unlikely that any of Smith's close relatives are actually
reading this. If they were, then possibly the argument that respect for
their feelings of grief would make this a bad time to point out just what
a [censored] Smith was would have some validity, instead of being a pathetic
excuse to defend his behaviour.

The dead Smith ran away when his laughable "research" was exposed as
cack-handed [censored]-wittery. His legacy is exactly the same policy -
safespeeding put their fingers in their ears and screech "la la la"
when they cannot answer a question:

The following is an email sent to you by an administrator of "Safe
Speed Forums". Message sent to you
follows:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi I have a plan and I want you
to consider helping me. I think that the increase of deliberate &
slanderous comments are not to be tolerated on the Safe Speed Forums.
They are against the Rules - which I have now re-posted and tweaked a
tiny bit. - see new Forum Rules. I am going to propose a slightly
different approach toward the 'trolls' and I want your help - if you
can .... We want NO ONE to post replies to the following - See LIST
below. I want to try to see how they react and if they go away (in
time) - or even start chatting to themselves (probably one and the
same anyway ...)They may go even more nuts, before they get the
message, and I am sure that they will be really nasty before they get
the idea ... seeing as they like to behave like children ...We will do
everything that we as administrators, can do to delete the bad stuff
before you see it, but let us know if you see anything that we may
have missed.I am NOT saying that you cannot reply to the topic - far
from it - just DO NOT answer their posts directly.I propose that if
they bring up a 'good point', that someone posts a new version of that
good point, and then we can discuss it from there. This is an
experiment at this point, to see if this works ....I really want to
get things into good debates. Not that there aren't many of these
already taking place. :-)If I ban these chaps - which I want to do,
then they come back again and again and sooner or later they 'slander'
insult etc and we start all over again. I hope that they will start to
do as I ask, which is to debate one point / thread and stick to it
(although slip is allowed). The constant need to argue about
everything is a waste of everyone's time. Good debate is excellent, bu
this is not happening in some areas. IF I think that someone is
beginning to ask just one point, and think that they *can* be answered
I will POST in here to state that they are :Off Troll Alert. If I show
control at this early point then I *hope*, that it will send out the
right message 'that these boards are for good debate and chat' they
are not a platform to ridicule and slander.If you are unsure contact
me or any of the mods._________________Claire ArmstrongSafe Speed for
Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience &
guidance.

End quote.

Run away from challenging questions.

Ignore awkward counter points.

Ban dissent.

spindrift said:

The following is an email sent to you by an administrator of "Safe
Speed Forums". Message sent to you
follows:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi I have a plan and I want you
to consider helping me.

Quoted message said:

We want NO ONE to post replies to the following - See LIST
below.

Quoted message said:

I propose that if
they bring up a 'good point', that someone posts a new version of that
good point, and then we can discuss it from there.

So plagiarism is an official policy of safespeed. That sounds on par for
them.

Quoted message said:

I hope that they will start to
do as I ask, which is to debate one point / thread and stick to it

IF I think that someone is

Quoted message said:

beginning to ask just one point, and think that they *can* be answered
I will POST in here to state that they are :Off Troll Alert.

Somewhat contradictory, you should only debate one point, but if you
debate one point you are a troll.
They get really upset about trolls on their website, yet seem quite
happy to continually try to troll other websites and newsgroups.

Quoted message said:

The constant need to argue about
everything is a waste of everyone's time. Good debate is excellent, bu
this is not happening in some areas.

So what is the difference betwen arguement and debate, it sounds to me
that debate is if you agree with them, and arguement is if you don't.
How can you properly debate road safety if you just surround yourself
with yes-men.

In article <3267b08e-db5c-409f-9ca4-59c8fdc7a95e@
72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, spindrift
[email hidden] says...

//
The following is an email sent to you by an administrator of "Safe
Speed Forums"

....

"Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research,
experience & guidance."
//

Har har har.

spindrift said:

(Alan Braggins) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:52:00 -0800 (PST), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Perhaps I'll start attacking your late father and see how you like
>that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not aware that he trolled Usenet, made a career out of lying, or
facilitated the harassment of those who disagreed with him. Do feel
free to provide any evidence you have of his doing so, though.

Quoted message said:

It also seems unlikely that any of Smith's close relatives are actually
reading this. If they were, then possibly the argument that respect for
their feelings of grief would make this a bad time to point out just what
a [censored] Smith was would have some validity, instead of being a pathetic
excuse to defend his behaviour.

The dead Smith ran away when his laughable "research" was exposed as
cack-handed [censored]-wittery. His legacy is exactly the same policy -
safespeeding put their fingers in their ears and screech "la la la"
when they cannot answer a question:

The following is an email sent to you by an administrator of "Safe
Speed Forums". Message sent to you
follows:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi I have a plan and I want you
to consider helping me. I think that the increase of deliberate &
slanderous comments are not to be tolerated on the Safe Speed Forums.
They are against the Rules - which I have now re-posted and tweaked a
tiny bit. - see new Forum Rules. I am going to propose a slightly
different approach toward the 'trolls' and I want your help - if you
can .... We want NO ONE to post replies to the following - See LIST
below. I want to try to see how they react and if they go away (in
time) - or even start chatting to themselves (probably one and the
same anyway ...)They may go even more nuts, before they get the
message, and I am sure that they will be really nasty before they get
the idea ... seeing as they like to behave like children ...We will do
everything that we as administrators, can do to delete the bad stuff
before you see it, but let us know if you see anything that we may
have missed.I am NOT saying that you cannot reply to the topic - far
from it - just DO NOT answer their posts directly.I propose that if
they bring up a 'good point', that someone posts a new version of that
good point, and then we can discuss it from there. This is an
experiment at this point, to see if this works ....I really want to
get things into good debates. Not that there aren't many of these
already taking place. :-)If I ban these chaps - which I want to do,
then they come back again and again and sooner or later they 'slander'
insult etc and we start all over again. I hope that they will start to
do as I ask, which is to debate one point / thread and stick to it
(although slip is allowed). The constant need to argue about
everything is a waste of everyone's time. Good debate is excellent, bu
this is not happening in some areas. IF I think that someone is
beginning to ask just one point, and think that they *can* be answered
I will POST in here to state that they are :Off Troll Alert. If I show
control at this early point then I *hope*, that it will send out the
right message 'that these boards are for good debate and chat' they
are not a platform to ridicule and slander.If you are unsure contact
me or any of the mods._________________Claire ArmstrongSafe Speed for
Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience &
guidance.

End quote.

Run away from challenging questions.

Ignore awkward counter points.

Ban dissent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its all down to you Spindrift, you've been so offensive in the past
that you've been banned from Safespeed, Pistonheads and caused the
closure of the Cycling Plus forum. You carry on insulting Paul Smith
after his death and wonder why his partner doesn't want you on the
forum. Are you thick, monumentally insensitive or mentally ill?

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift said:

On 16 Feb, 18:49, [email hidden] (Alan Braggins) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:52:00 -0800 (PST), Sir Jeremy
><[email hidden]> said in
><[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Perhaps I'll start attacking your late father and see how you like
>>that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I'm not aware that he trolled Usenet, made a career out of lying, or
>facilitated the harassment of those who disagreed with him. Do feel
>free to provide any evidence you have of his doing so, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It also seems unlikely that any of Smith's close relatives are actually
reading this. If they were, then possibly the argument that respect for
their feelings of grief would make this a bad time to point out just what
a [censored] Smith was would have some validity, instead of being a pathetic
excuse to defend his behaviour.

Quoted message said:

The dead Smith ran away when his laughable "research" was exposed as
cack-handed [censored]-wittery. His legacy is exactly the same policy -
safespeeding put their fingers in their ears and screech "la la la"
when they cannot answer a question:

Quoted message said:

The following is an email sent to you by an administrator of "Safe
Speed Forums". Message sent to you
follows:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi I have a plan and I want you
to consider helping me. I think that the increase of deliberate &
slanderous comments are not to be tolerated on the Safe Speed Forums.
They are against the Rules - which I have now re-posted and tweaked a
tiny bit. - see new Forum Rules. I am going to propose a slightly
different approach toward the 'trolls' and I want your help - if you
can .... We want NO ONE to post replies to the following - See LIST
below. I want to try to see how they react and if they go away (in
time) - or even start chatting to themselves (probably one and the
same anyway ...)They may go even more nuts, before they get the
message, and I am sure that they will be really nasty before they get
the idea ... seeing as they like to behave like children ...We will do
everything that we as administrators, can do to delete the bad stuff
before you see it, but let us know if you see anything that we may
have missed.I am NOT saying that you cannot reply to the topic - far
from it - just DO NOT answer their posts directly.I propose that if
they bring up a 'good point', that someone posts a new version of that
good point, and then we can discuss it from there. This is an
experiment at this point, to see if this works ....I really want to
get things into good debates. Not that there aren't many of these
already taking place. :-)If I ban these chaps - which I want to do,
then they come back again and again and sooner or later they 'slander'
insult etc and we start all over again. I hope that they will start to
do as I ask, which is to debate one point / thread and stick to it
(although slip is allowed). The constant need to argue about
everything is a waste of everyone's time. Good debate is excellent, bu
this is not happening in some areas. IF I think that someone is
beginning to ask just one point, and think that they *can* be answered
I will POST in here to state that they are :Off Troll Alert. If I show
control at this early point then I *hope*, that it will send out the
right message 'that these boards are for good debate and chat' they
are not a platform to ridicule and slander.If you are unsure contact
me or any of the mods._________________Claire ArmstrongSafe Speed for
Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience &
guidance.

Quoted message said:

End quote.

Quoted message said:

Run away from challenging questions.

Quoted message said:

Ignore awkward counter points.

Quoted message said:

Ban dissent.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Its all down to you Spindrift, you've been so offensive in the past
that you've been banned from Safespeed, Pistonheads and caused the
closure of the Cycling Plus forum. You carry on insulting Paul Smith
after his death and wonder why his partner doesn't want you on the
forum. Are you thick, monumentally insensitive or mentally ill?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1/

You've claimed this before. I asked for examples of anything offensive
I posted on the safespeeding website. Still waiting.

2/

The last time I posted there was on the "Some won't let it lie"
thread. I asked polite questions about the safespeeding policy and
Smith's qualifications. I was called a "[censored]" and was banned and
the questions deleted. The thread's still there, go check.

3/

Not everyone who posts criticism on safespeeding is me. Not everyone
who disagreed with Smith is me. Not everyone with a counter view is
me. Your paranoia is showing again.

4/

Cycling Plus was amalgamated and all the posters remain on Cycle Chat
and Bike radar, you can find me on both.

5/

The Cycling Plus forum and employees of Future Publishing suffered a
barrage of abuse from safespeeding posters, mostly those swiss loons.
Emails and phone calls were sent to Future staff at home, harrassment
and intimidation from safespeeding posters disrupted the forum and the
safespeeding posters admitted as much, i can post the quote if you
like, this is from your pretend copper "In Gear":

Kriss posted as NTC - my wife and she is a vet - honest. "tame" - er
yeah - er- right - er - um .....
I am Mike - and I was the Frenzied Feline and only registered as FF to
bail her out of trouble...
We did not post anything as this pair afte last January when we were
finally locked up in the dungeons here.
We did not know these guys waded in after us - did not think anyone
would to be honest....

Brandy - Yikes - where do I start?
We were not sure ourselves for some time - guy we suspected was
working at times some of these posts were registered onto the site.
Seems he roped in some of his chums So we had Swiss Andreas (lawyer)
and his pal also called Andreas (German originally from Dresden also a
lawyer and now working abroad again) and a UK lawyer chum called
Andrew. Honestly knew nothing for a while and of course they started
to compete with each other out smart-alec each other - made it worse
really. (Oh dear... you'll all go ballistic....mercy please)

LLS? Billy-Bob - Pal of yet another of the Swiss - English and an
accountant - lives in a very pretty Lancashire hill village, He really
is that tall by the way.
Sport Mad - Billy-Bob's cycling chum - Willi - Swiss and an
accountant. He nearly did come a cropper at a pinch point and got into
a tizz at a large roundabout on his bike.
Head Boy - Siegfried - eldest of the Swiss males. Lawyer - lives in
Berlin. Owns two properties over here where he lets out to holiday
makers - one in Horncliffe and one in Horndean . Some may recall that
Geography is not his strong point
So er - now you know. We have no idea who CC is - not one of this
bunch to my knowledge.

End quote.

There you have it Jezza.

Your own fellow posters admit a campaign of abuse and harrassment
using multiple poster ID's on Cycling Plus. That evidence and
admission, plus your repeated claims that I'm mentally ill, go a long
way towards explaining the pro-speeding mindset and the moral
bankruptcy at the heart of smith's lunatic campaign. Smith was a bully
and a coward and a fraudster, his toadying acolytes are continuing his
refusal to engage in debate, as the quote above demonstrates very
well.

Sir Jeremy said:

You carry on insulting Paul Smith
after his death and wonder why his partner doesn't want you on the
forum. Are you thick, monumentally insensitive or mentally ill?

It is a pity smith did not show any respect to the dead or living whilst
he was still alive, then you might have a point.

It was smith who encouraged the use of the recently deceased, and their
families for speedophiles to get off of speeding tickets.

He encouraged people to speed, and supported hate campaigns against
groups trying to reduce speed limits outside schools. His sick website,
and thus himself, encouraged the running down of teenagers by motorists
for being in their way.

However I would not denigrate myself to posting on his sick website.

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy said:

You carry on insulting Paul Smith
after his death and wonder why his partner doesn't want you on the
forum. Are you thick, monumentally insensitive or mentally ill?

It is a pity smith did not show any respect to the dead or living whilst
he was still alive, then you might have a point.

They're only sulking because the RCs have just decided to tighten the rules
for canonisation - they were thinking of putting PS up for it.

The miracle of the magic graphs? St Paul of the perpertually predicting
armageddon in the past?

cheers,
clive

"He encouraged people to speed, and supported hate campaigns against
groups trying to reduce speed limits outside schools."

There's a thread called "More do-gooders" on smith's website,
detailing a blog written by a chap who is urgently calling for lower
speeds in his village.

Smith allowed his posters to trace the man and post his home address,
name and phone number on the safespeeding forum.

That's smith's true colours right there, a coward and a bully.

spindrift said:

"He encouraged people to speed, and supported hate campaigns against
groups trying to reduce speed limits outside schools."

There's a thread called "More do-gooders" on smith's website,
detailing a blog written by a chap who is urgently calling for lower
speeds in his village.

Smith allowed his posters to trace the man and post his home address,
name and phone number on the safespeeding forum.

That's smith's true colours right there, a coward and a bully.

Classic, rather than answer the questions here nuxxy runs back to
safespeeding and claims victory:

I think the car-hating is the main reason behind the crazed anti-Safe
Speed sentiment: we dare to campaign to make things easier for the
motorist, through the removal of speed cameras, which are of course
very effective at systematically persecuting (or threatening to
persecute) every single driver bar none (even those who supposedly
"never speed"😉. What really winds the trolls up is that we're right
about the cameras not working, and don't they know it. They so
desperately wanted cameras to succeed, so that the motorists would
just have to put up with being persecuted, and we've come along and
burst their bubble. They're shooting the messenger of course, like all
the best irrational people, since all we're doing is reporting the
facts.

The thing that I find most irritating about their motorist-hating is
the complete denial. Even Spindrift denies that he's anti-motorist.
When asked whether there are any anti-motorist measures which they
oppose, he and his ilk claim that there isn't a single anti-motorist
measure anywhere in the UK. (Quite how they can know that without
having been at every single council meeting everywhere in the last
decade, to confirm their given reasons for implementing trafffic
calming etc, is beyond me.)

I can only guess that this ridiculous denial is because the motorist-
haters know that their dislike of cars is illogical and indefensible,
since you need cars for a significant number of journeys (just ask
Monbigot). Which poses the question, why be so rabidly anti-motorist
at all? Wouldn't it be better if they found a cause which they felt
they could admit to supporting?

I find it all rather perverse and puzzling. The really strange thing
is that many of them drive themselves, making them somewhat
hypocritical to say the least (although Spindrift doesn't seem to
drive, and he quite possibly doesn't cycle either; I guess he uses
public transport to get between Internet cafes). If only all drivers
would stop feeling "guilty" about their need to drive and start
sticking up for themselves and their fellow motorists. There's 32
million of us (I think) so all the nonsense would surely have to stop
then. It really is about time the cycling trolls and the authorities
were made to stop spitefully picking on us just for trying to get
around.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17561

spindrift said:

spindrift said:

"He encouraged people to speed, and supported hate campaigns against
groups trying to reduce speed limits outside schools."

Quoted message said:

There's a thread called "More do-gooders" on smith's website,
detailing a blog written by a chap who is urgently calling for lower
speeds in his village.

Quoted message said:

Smith allowed his posters to trace the man and post his home address,
name and phone number on the safespeeding forum.

Quoted message said:

That's smith's true colours right there, a coward and a bully.

Classic, rather than answer the questions here nuxxy runs back to
safespeeding and claims victory:

I think the car-hating is the main reason behind the crazed anti-Safe
Speed sentiment: we dare to campaign to make things easier for the
motorist, through the removal of speed cameras, which are of course
very effective at systematically persecuting (or threatening to
persecute) every single driver bar none (even those who supposedly
"never speed"😉. What really winds the trolls up is that we're right
about the cameras not working, and don't they know it. They so
desperately wanted cameras to succeed, so that the motorists would
just have to put up with being persecuted, and we've come along and
burst their bubble. They're shooting the messenger of course, like all
the best irrational people, since all we're doing is reporting the
facts.

The thing that I find most irritating about their motorist-hating is
the complete denial. Even Spindrift denies that he's anti-motorist.
When asked whether there are any anti-motorist measures which they
oppose, he and his ilk claim that there isn't a single anti-motorist
measure anywhere in the UK. (Quite how they can know that without
having been at every single council meeting everywhere in the last
decade, to confirm their given reasons for implementing trafffic
calming etc, is beyond me.)

I can only guess that this ridiculous denial is because the motorist-
haters know that their dislike of cars is illogical and indefensible,
since you need cars for a significant number of journeys (just ask
Monbigot). Which poses the question, why be so rabidly anti-motorist
at all? Wouldn't it be better if they found a cause which they felt
they could admit to supporting?

I find it all rather perverse and puzzling. The really strange thing
is that many of them drive themselves, making them somewhat
hypocritical to say the least (although Spindrift doesn't seem to
drive, and he quite possibly doesn't cycle either; I guess he uses
public transport to get between Internet cafes). If only all drivers
would stop feeling "guilty" about their need to drive and start
sticking up for themselves and their fellow motorists. There's 32
million of us (I think) so all the nonsense would surely have to stop
then. It really is about time the cycling trolls and the authorities
were made to stop spitefully picking on us just for trying to get
around.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17561

Spindrift, your OCD is showing

In article <f6bdd13c-7ce0-4cbc-a0a7-4ee6c6a99af4@
28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>, spindrift
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Classic, rather than answer the questions here nuxxy runs back to
safespeeding and claims victory:

I think the car-hating is the main reason behind the crazed anti-Safe
Speed sentiment: we dare to campaign to make things easier for the
motorist, through the removal of speed cameras, which are of course
very effective at systematically persecuting (or threatening to
persecute) every single driver bar none (even those who supposedly
"never speed"😉.

What a bizarre bunch of nutters they are. Anyone who isn't capable of
keeping somewhere near the speed limit, or spotting a speed camera
before it flashes them, just shouldn't be driving. Maybe they're too
busy feeling persecuted to pay attention.

Simon Brooke said:

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Why don't you list what you think are anti-motorist measures so we can
>>> address them?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> They won't let us drive wherever and whenever we like at any speed and
>> in any manner we like in any vehicle we might want to! [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And people say that I'm a troll.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder why.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As a motorist and cyclist, I don't see speed cameras, speed limits,
Vehicle Excise Duty, compulsory licensing and obligatory insurance as
anti-motorist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm glad you said (some of) that.
I don't see vehicle registration and marks, compulsory licensing and
obligatory insurance as anti-cyclist, just pro-everyone else
(particularly pedestrians)

Quoted message said:

So how much do you think it would cost to insure and license cyclists, how
much of that would be administrative overhead, and who would benefit (and
in what way?)

It doesn't matter how much it would cost, any more than it matters what
it costs to license and insure motor vehicles. It is an accident of
history that we don't already have such a system, but the continuing
lack of them means that cyclists have very little incentive to behave
properly out on the highway.

Such a system would benefit every road user, including cyclists.

Clive George said:

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You carry on insulting Paul Smith
after his death and wonder why his partner doesn't want you on the
forum. Are you thick, monumentally insensitive or mentally ill?

Quoted message said:

It is a pity smith did not show any respect to the dead or living whilst
he was still alive, then you might have a point.

They're only sulking because the RCs have just decided to tighten the rules
for canonisation - they were thinking of putting PS up for it.

The miracle of the magic graphs? St Paul of the perpertually predicting
armageddon in the past?

cheers,
clive

The Blessed Smith of the Beer Mat Scribble Research and the Pompous
PRs That Refer To Himself In The Third Person.