In article <bikfdk$afcp3$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de>, Lamb Chop
<nothisisntme@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Obiwan Sensai" <Obiwan_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:bijkuj03nd@drn.newsguy.com...
> 
> > 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.
> >
> Archie? Yeah. Rice? Not that Ive noticed, no.

You lie with amazing ease. Not only are you the kind of weasel that snips things
and then says they weren't answered, but you lie about posting a followup to
Rice. Don't you remember thanking him and then proceeding to twist what Rice had
done to suit your obsessive purpose of having a go at Stan :) Here is the MID
again so everyone can see clearly what a liar you are
<ATu0b.58$HX5.14@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net> Go on tell us all that it was
irony or that what you really meant was.....:)
 
> > > 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 :)
> >
> If you could at least temporarily put away your healty dose of cynicism you
> might get somewhere.
> 
> > > I wasnt here, FFS! Or if I was I missed it.
> >
> > You were here.
> >
> Then I missed it. Next question...

It wasn't a question, it said simply, you were here.
> 
> > > 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 :)
> >
> Youre a fine one to talk! If you hadnt been so damn vague we would have
> worked out a week ago you were referring to Croft and not Smicker.

You are the one who is jumping head first into long standing issues. If you do
some research you will know the background, don't expect others to spoon feed
you what you are too lazy or too stupid to find for yourself.
> 
>  > 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 :)
> 
> Well youre missing an important distinction. In my case we are talking about
> a *number* of people wishing to remove someone. Thats called democracy,

No you are a vigilante  who wants to run his own kangaroo court, you are the
kind of lowlife scum who likes to dress up their wrongdoings as something to
help the people LOL.

> which is A Good Thing (tm). The opposite view has a single poster wishing to
> remove a number of people. Thats called censorship, which is A Bad Thing
> (tm).

As far as I can see, Stan is taking a legal path, but you were just trying to
buy friends with your offer of £1000 to get Stan removed :)
> 
> > You want to deprive him of usenet access can't you see you are
> > obsessed with him :)
> >
> Yes if you say so Obi. In the same way that youre obsessed with me, eh?

You are obviously obsessed with Stan as witnessed by the lengths you have gone
to in your campaign again him, you have offered money to get rid of him and have
twisted Rices word to make it look like he was talking about Stan, quite
obsessive I would call it. Now that everyone has seen how devious you are, you
are just like the other husband trolls :)
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> Strawman argument. I would not remove anyones right of redress. What I
> *would* remove is the opportunity for people to abuse the system.

Just as long as it is you that defines "abuse" LOL
> 
> > > 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?
> >
> Hasnt he? Im genuinely surprised - I thought he had.

I was asking you, you have gone on about how his inability to pay when he loses
a court case, so I assumed you have some info that I am not aware of.
> 
> > > 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 :)
> > >
> Well heres where your assumptions let you down. See you think I have enough
> interest to look it up. I dont.

Sausage dear, it is you that makes the false assumpton, I have never assumed
that you have any interest in looking it up, in fact I know that you don't want
to look it up because you know you have been lying and it is a convenient way
for you to pretend you don't know what someone is talking about. Others though
know how to use MIDS and can see for themselves what a liar you are, you have
well and truely nailed your colours to the mast :)
> 
> > > 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 you really could save me a deal of time by simply deciding which side of
> the fence to be on and staying there.

You time is of no consequence to anyone on usenet, but you could save a lot of
your own and others if you learned how to do your own research.

> If you want to simply make snide observations from the sidelines and
> ignore everything that someone posts back in argument then thats fine,

The snide observations from the sideline are all made by you, you don't even
have the honesty to read the history before you make your snide comments about
things you are totally ignorant about. That's fine you have shown everyone the
kind of lowlife you are.

> I can just label you as another uk.legal nutter along with Corley and Jon
> and simply ignore you.

What you don't seem to realise is that your labels are also of no consequence,
although Jon may take a different view with regard to you labelling him like
that.

> If on the other hand you *really* want to debate points then youll have to
> stop deliberately twisting what someone says and actually try some
> comprehension.

There is nothing to debate with you, you have shown how you will pretend not to
be able to use MIDS so that you can avoid awkward situations, you deliberately
twist others posts to look as if they are saying something bad about Stan. You
have no points to make as your points change when it is pointed out that what
you said was a lie.

> What I mean is -

Do you really ever know what you mean? 


> I'd *like* to continue to talk with you, since you at least appear to
> have some knowledge of the groups issues prior to my arrival and I would
> like to know about that.

It's just rhetoric from you, if you really did want to know about prior issues
you would research it, but of course that's not what you want to do, so what is
it you really meant:)


> On the other hand, at the moment you look to me like a wetsuited diver
> looks to a shark - you really fancy whats inside, but its just too much
> damn work to get the wrapper off

I can hear the guffaws echoing around your empty head, you haven't got a clue
what is going on in uk.legal or about anyone who posts there, you are just a
numpty :) a devious numpty, but a numpty nonetheless :)

Obi