In article <bihu9u$9lcu1$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de>, Lamb Chop
<nothisisntme@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Obiwan Sensai" <Obiwan_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:bihdqp0sl7@drn.newsguy.com...
> 
> > > On the other hand, if you *did*
> > > condemn Stan for it, then I apologise. See, it aint difficult to
> apologise,
> > > maybe you could try it for your unfounded allegations below...
> >
> > I can't see any unfounded allegation, can you point it out to me.
> >
> It was in relation to the issue of Smicker/Croft which we both now know to
> be a misunderstanding. Therefore, my apology above stands.
> 
> > > > besides which If there are lots of others who condemn something it
> doesn't
> > > > really need my condemnation :)
> > > >
> > > > Which reminds me, when did you condemn Rice for publishing personal
> > > details,
> > >
> > > I couldnt give a rats whether you believe me or not,
> >
> > Isn't that convenient :)
> >
> > > but Ive no idea who Rice actually is.
> >
> > Really :) Do you know who many people actually are, on usenet? What point
> are
> > you making exactly.
> >
> Well again its down to my writing style, sorry. When I said "know", I meant
> that I hadnt come across them while posting here.

Are you saying that you haven't come across Rice and Archibald, surely not :)
Just what are you saying ? If you look near the bottom of this post you will see
a MID that shows you have come across Rice whilst you have been posting here.

> I cant really be expected
> to condemn something that happened prior to me posting here can I, since I
> wouldnt be aware of it. There is some allegations that there is currently a
> poster here who is really 'Croft' (is that the same person as Rice who you
> mention above?)

LOL, I don't know whether to laugh or cry :)

>, but since *everyone* appears to think everyone else is
> really someone they have a fixation on then I cant really say can I?
> 
> > > Had I been here when s/he did so, I would happily have
> > > condemned them too. Okay now?
> >
> > Well, the respected Rice has been posting personal medical details and
> details
> > of someones criminal record, with what looks to be a few winks and nods
> and yet
> > I can't find your condemnation of Rice anywhere.
> 
> I wasnt here, FFS! Or if I was I missed it.

You were here. 

> Anyway, as 'wrong' as posting a
> criminal record is, I personally feel its less wrong than posting their
> address and/or phone number, which is to my way of thinking an incitement to
> harrass

Ah well as long as you can justify it, it's okay then :)
> 
> Your mate Archibald, aka
> > Husband made a post in which he libelled Stan saying that he drew the
> conclusion
> > that Stan had posted Poisen-Pen letters to Jim Hulberts neighbours, I
> can't see
> > your condemnation of that either :)
> > >
> Are you mad? Every damn post I can find bar none of Stans libels someone, if
> what you describe above

You have to try and be more specific, why not quote the words rather than make
people guess to what you are alluding :)

> is sufficient to be libellous.


> > > What company? Come on Obi, lets see who exactly has whos colours pinned
> to
> > > the mast.
> >
> > You must have a short memory sausage, can't you remember your mates you
> > continually back up against Stan :)
> >
> I refer you to the answer in the sentence below.
> 
> > > I support absolutely nobody in here except myself.
> >
> > So when you made an affer to uk.legal to pay £1000 towards getting some
> kind of
> > legal injunction against Stan to Stop him posting to usenet were you
> supporting
> > yourself or your running mates in uk.legal :)
> >
> Yep! I strongly believe that people such as Stan who continually attempt to
> censor specific other posters, using threats of legal action and/or
> revealing confidential data about them, are at least attempting to if not
> succeeding in removing essential freedoms of usenet.

You are just as guilty :) can't you see how your offer to chip in £1000 to to
get rid of Stan is (apart from being stupid) is just as bad as what you accuse
him off :) You want to deprive him of usenet access can't you see you are
obsessed with him :)

> Stan has said that he has no means of paying costs should any be awarded
> against himself, and that the very fact that he *cant* pay means he doesnt
> have to be selective about chances of winning.

He may not have the means to pay costs should he lose, but if he is convinced
that he has just cause to start the case then you would take that option away
because he doesn't have as much money as the defendant, so only the wealthy can
use the law when it suits them and the poor can be libelled by everyone.

> In his mind hes free to sue anyone and everyone - if he
> wins he gets to profit, if he loses he pays nothing and the person he loses
> to ends up paying their own costs. Now heres where we get to the rub of me
> and Stan. To my way of thinking, that makes Stan *beneath* contempt. I
> despise that characteristic. Note that doesnt say 'I despise Stan', just
> that element of his behaviour.

But he hasn't actually sued anyone has he?

> > It still doesn't stop you "joining forces" so to speak, when it suits you,
> yes
> > you are a real paragon of virtue when it suits you:)
> >
> I DONT 'join forces'! What is it with you and this conspiracy theory!

It's not a conspiracy theory, you really should remember what you write, you
said "I'll chip in a grand toward the cost of such a
suit - who wants to join me?" Now please don't tell me that when you said "join
me" that's not what you meant :)
> 
> > Remember this post Message-ID:
> <dsYVa.94$PS4.80@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
> > where you libel Stan saying that "even when you beat this mongrel you cant
> get
> > costs from him." BTW how do you come to that conclusion, have you beaten
> him and
> > won costs which weren't paid ?
> >
> No, I read it in a newsgroup posting which Stan himself authored, where he
> talks about having no assets to pay
> 
> > Maybe you remember this post which shows just what lengths you will go to
> in
> > your campaign against Stan by making friends with another libeller
> > Message-ID: <1SRSa.6266$47.1995966@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
> >
> Sorry, you still havent explained to me how to use these refs you give to
> come up with a post, so I dont have the faintest idea what youre talking
> about.

You are a lazy bastard, do some research for yourself :) it will mean so much
more to you than being spoon-fed. Unless of course you really do know how to use
them, but use it as a technique not to answer awkward questions :)
> 
> > We have seen how you like to twist posts to suit your purpose, but when
> you go
> > to the extreme of twisting a post so that it no longer relates to the
> original
> > subject, but to Stan, just so that you can continue with your campaign
> then I
> > think it demonstrates perfectly well that you are not someone to be
> trusted.
> >
> eh?

Oh come on, do you come out with so much tripe that you can't remember when you
misrepresent a post for your own purposes :) If you ever crack using MIDS then
have a look at this one Message-ID:
<ATu0b.58$HX5.14@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net> and tell us why you twist the
Rice post so that you can have a go at Stan or are you going to tell us yet
again that's not what you meant :) I think that post of yours says a lot about
you and the lengths you will go to, to continue your obsession with Stan.

Obi