Re: Fun and games

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
>> Duncan)
>
>But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
>character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>

The nature of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want
provided that it's not illegal to do so. Much as you and I might not
like what Bertie says we should defend his right to say it. (And then
of course ignore it!).

Richard T

On Jul 23, 6:11 pm, Richard T <r1chardth0rpeNOS...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
> >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
> >> Duncan)
>
> >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
> >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>
> The nature of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want
> provided that it's not illegal to do so. Much as you and I might not
> like what Bertie says we should defend his right to say it. (And then
> of course ignore it!).
>
> Richard T

He, you mean them, we have now established that there is a collective,
they think as one, they take it in turns to use the collective brain
cell, and thanks for the advice but I had already arrived at the
decision to ignore them, it worked quite well with another moron that
I have long ignored.

Pete Knight

Richard T wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
> >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
> >> Duncan)
> >
> >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
> >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
> >
>For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish.
>

On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote:
> Richard T wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
> > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
> > >> Duncan)
>
> > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
> > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>
> >For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish.

The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the
unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to
the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and
Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine
comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question
came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject,
but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not
the question, read back through the thread before commenting please.

Oh, and learn to post properly too!

Pete Knight

On 23 Jul, 19:00, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard T wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
> > > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
> > > >> Duncan)
>
> > > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
> > > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>
> > >For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish.
>
> The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the
> unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to
> the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and
> Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine
> comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question
> came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject,
> but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not
> the question, read back through the thread before commenting please.
>
> Oh, and learn to post properly too!
>
> Pete Knight

Ooooooooo sorry pete, i guess my secondary education has let me down
again. Wish i was a smart ass!

Hamish wrote:
> On 23 Jul, 19:00, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Richard T wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
>>>>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
>>>>>> Duncan)
>>>>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
>>>>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>>>> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish.
>> The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the
>> unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to
>> the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and
>> Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine
>> comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question
>> came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject,
>> but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not
>> the question, read back through the thread before commenting please.
>>
>> Oh, and learn to post properly too!
>>
>> Pete Knight
>
> Ooooooooo sorry pete, i guess my secondary education has let me down
> again. Wish i was a smart ass!

That's arse!

Hamish wrote:
> Richard T wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great
>>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does
>>>> Duncan)
>>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
>>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>>>
>> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments.

I read legion's comments , but they were so full of factual errors that
there was no point in absorbing them

You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours.

Not anyone, only muppets.

Your rantings do you no favours,

No looking for any.

& whilst i am a supporter of Duncans`

Which is more than I am, personally I dislike the mans attitude and
woudn't have voted for him if I was still a member of BN.

i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says.

I'm lampooning legion because they deserve it, not because
he/she/it/they are anti Heenan.

On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully.

It's a hard life.

marc wrote:
> Hamish wrote:
>> Richard T wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of
>>>>> our Great
>>>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as
>>>>> does
>>>>> Duncan)
>>>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good
>>>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours.
>>>>
>>> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the
>>> above comments.
>
> I read legion's comments , but they were so full of factual errors that
> there was no point in absorbing them
>
>
> You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours.
>
> Not anyone, only muppets.
>
>
>
> Your rantings do you no favours,
>
> No looking for any.
>
> & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans`
>
> Which is more than I am, personally I dislike the mans attitude and
> woudn't have voted for him if I was still a member of BN.
>
> i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says.
>
> I'm lampooning legion because they deserve it, not because
> he/she/it/they are anti Heenan.
>
> On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully.
>
>
> It's a hard life.

BUGGER! because Hamish posts like a prat it makes my text look as bad! :-(

Apologies to anyone trying to make head or tail out of it!

	#1
Richard T	Re: Fun and games On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does >> Duncan) > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. > The nature of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want provided that it's not illegal to do so. Much as you and I might not like what Bertie says we should defend his right to say it. (And then of course ignore it!). Richard T

	#2
Pete Knight	Re: Fun and games On Jul 23, 6:11 pm, Richard T <r1chardth0rpeNOS...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does > >> Duncan) > > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. > > The nature of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want > provided that it's not illegal to do so. Much as you and I might not > like what Bertie says we should defend his right to say it. (And then > of course ignore it!). > > Richard T He, you mean them, we have now established that there is a collective, they think as one, they take it in turns to use the collective brain cell, and thanks for the advice but I had already arrived at the decision to ignore them, it worked quite well with another moron that I have long ignored. Pete Knight

	#3
Hamish	Re: Fun and games Richard T wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does > >> Duncan) > > > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. > > >For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish. >

	#4
Pete Knight	Re: Fun and games On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote: > Richard T wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great > > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does > > >> Duncan) > > > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good > > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. > > >For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish. The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject, but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not the question, read back through the thread before commenting please. Oh, and learn to post properly too! Pete Knight

	#5
Hamish	Re: Fun and games On 23 Jul, 19:00, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote: > > > Richard T wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great > > > >> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does > > > >> Duncan) > > > > >But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good > > > >character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. > > > >For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish. > > The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the > unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to > the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and > Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine > comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question > came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject, > but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not > the question, read back through the thread before commenting please. > > Oh, and learn to post properly too! > > Pete Knight Ooooooooo sorry pete, i guess my secondary education has let me down again. Wish i was a smart ass!

	#6
marc	Re: Fun and games Hamish wrote: > On 23 Jul, 19:00, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 23, 6:51 pm, Hamish <ast...@supanet.com> wrote: >> >>> Richard T wrote: >>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great >>>>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does >>>>>> Duncan) >>>>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good >>>>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. >>>> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Your rantings do you no favours, & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. Hamish. >> The only reason they came in for any kind of comment is for the >> unwarranted abusive comments aimed at Duncan, they brought nothing to >> the debate which was doing quite well establishing that 'Fun and >> Games' were a popular part of life within BN, then the asinine >> comments directed by an anonymous groupat a quite reasonable question >> came along. I have no problem with an opinion on any given subject, >> but the comments from the collective were directed at the person not >> the question, read back through the thread before commenting please. >> >> Oh, and learn to post properly too! >> >> Pete Knight > > Ooooooooo sorry pete, i guess my secondary education has let me down > again. Wish i was a smart ass! That's arse!

	#7
marc	Re: Fun and games Hamish wrote: > Richard T wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of our Great >>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as does >>>> Duncan) >>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good >>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. >>> >> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the above comments. I read legion's comments , but they were so full of factual errors that there was no point in absorbing them You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. Not anyone, only muppets. Your rantings do you no favours, No looking for any. & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` Which is more than I am, personally I dislike the mans attitude and woudn't have voted for him if I was still a member of BN. i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. I'm lampooning legion because they deserve it, not because he/she/it/they are anti Heenan. On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. It's a hard life.

	#8
marc	Re: Fun and games marc wrote: > Hamish wrote: >> Richard T wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:09:58 -0700, Pete Knight <pete084@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, "Hagar" <fatm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Duncan may in his views have many ideals, but in what is left of >>>>> our Great >>>>> British Empire, we do still have limited rights of free speech (as >>>>> does >>>>> Duncan) >>>> But freedom of speech doesn't stretch to maligning someone of good >>>> character just because he holds a different viewpoint to yours. >>>> >>> For Marc, Pete & a few others. I hope you read & absorb the >>> above comments. > > I read legion's comments , but they were so full of factual errors that > there was no point in absorbing them > > > You take great pride in abusing anyone with a different opinion to yours. > > Not anyone, only muppets. > > > > Your rantings do you no favours, > > No looking for any. > > & whilst i am a supporter of Duncans` > > Which is more than I am, personally I dislike the mans attitude and > woudn't have voted for him if I was still a member of BN. > > i see no reason to slag off someone who disagrees with what he says. > > I'm lampooning legion because they deserve it, not because > he/she/it/they are anti Heenan. > > On here you come over as the equivalant of the school bully. > > > It's a hard life. BUGGER! because Hamish posts like a prat it makes my text look as bad! :-( Apologies to anyone trying to make head or tail out of it!