"Mint Sauce" <stanmould@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5Ku3b.171$AU1.11@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Lamb Chop" <nothisisntme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bilqut$atrqh$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Mint Sauce" <stanmould@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:zUt3b.954$hz1.563@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > All tags removed for clarity - each sentence prefixed [ST] for
> Stan and [AN]
> > for me
> > ------------------------------------
> > [AN] Are you mad? Every damn post I can find bar none of Stans
> libels
> > someone, if what you describe above is sufficient to be libellous.
> >
> > [ST] What on earth does that mean?  Again in English?  Are you
> seriously
> > suggesting I have made libellous posts?
> >
> > [AN] Sorry Stan youll have to try harder. Thats patently *not*
> what I said.
> > What I *did* say was that if what Obi considers to be libel
> actually *was*,
> > then you, I, and every other poster here would be guilty.
> >
> > [ST] No, you are dissembling again.  I read your paragraph
> (utterly without
> > punctuation) as this (with the missing punctuation) - 'Are you
> mad?  Every
> > damn post I can find, bar none, of Stan's, libels someone ...'.
> etc. If you
> > were capable of writing in English, it should have read (last
> sentence
> > only) -
> >
> > [ST] 'Every post of Stan's, bar none, libels someone ... etc'.
> Now to my
> > mind, THAT is a libel.  Even the crap English version is a libel
> despite its
> > lack of clarity.
> >
> > [ST]  You want to make your apology for your utterly unwarranted
> behaviour
> > towards me since 9th July now, or after the court orders you to?
> Your
> > choice.
> > -----------------------------------
> > Thanks Stan. Okay, lets try it again then. I am NOT responsible
> for your
> > complete inability to comprehend whats written. To paraphrase (but
> its all
> > there above no omissions if you need to pick through it again)
> what I said
> > "If what you [Obi] believe to be libel actually IS libel, then
> every post
> > Stan has made contains a libel." Obi suggested that Husband
> libelled you by
> > saying he had come to the conclusion that Stan had posted letters.
> My
> > sentence above implies that I find that that to be ludicrous, and
> goes
> > further by suggesting that such innuendo if not outright unfounded
> > accusations are quite prevalent in your own posts. Therefore; "If
> what you
> > think is libel is libel, Stans been libelling". Now you say that
> that
> > comment itself is libellous. Go for it then my old mate. Or you
> can have my
> > apology if you like. I am genuinely sorry that you are that stupid
> you cant
> > understand what I was saying. Okay?
>
> Above ignored.  Too late, boy.  I'm seeing my solicitor tomorrow at
> five.  YOU are first on the list.  It was going to be someone else,
> but you'll do for now.  I suggest you stop posting about me - NOW.
>
> Tell it to the judge - and the police.
>
Eat me Stan ;o)