Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #60933 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-20 15:05 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-09-22 14:24 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 362 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 15:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-09-20 13:15 +0800
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 16:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 17:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:44 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-20 21:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Lucifer Morningstar <not@for.mail> - 2017-09-23 15:50 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Lucifer Morningstar <not@for.mail> - 2017-09-23 15:47 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-20 16:49 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 16:59 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 02:56 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 19:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 17:02 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-20 21:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 21:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 06:06 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 19:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-20 21:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 04:15 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 10:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 10:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 20:07 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:15 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-21 04:18 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 01:06 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 14:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 01:09 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 01:31 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 01:38 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 18:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 06:03 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 09:11 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 09:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-21 23:33 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 12:44 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 06:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 16:19 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 07:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 08:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 17:38 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 10:16 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 19:56 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 10:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 10:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 17:35 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 09:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 18:26 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 09:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 20:04 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 11:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 00:58 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 01:28 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:33 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 09:40 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-22 13:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 14:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-21 21:54 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 09:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 09:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 10:28 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:54 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 12:19 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 13:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 14:40 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 15:03 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 15:14 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 15:52 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 16:38 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 18:56 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 06:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 20:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-23 21:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 19:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 06:40 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 11:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 11:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 12:54 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 10:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 11:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 11:38 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 14:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:33 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-24 19:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-24 21:22 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 07:25 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 03:53 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 13:29 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 06:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 16:45 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-24 22:54 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 18:44 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-25 10:10 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-25 00:25 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 19:46 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 07:56 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-09-24 22:41 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 09:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 11:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 11:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 13:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 14:58 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-25 17:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 18:38 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 09:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 09:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 11:25 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 11:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 14:14 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-25 17:45 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-25 18:13 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 04:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 13:45 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:33 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 16:20 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 07:58 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 11:53 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:00 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:19 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-24 23:05 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 15:04 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-25 05:35 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-25 19:35 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-25 14:58 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 13:56 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 14:35 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 15:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 16:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 17:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 04:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-26 07:11 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 09:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-25 19:01 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-26 19:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 20:40 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-25 19:42 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 09:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 14:01 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 16:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-26 04:18 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 19:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-26 05:26 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 20:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-26 20:41 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 07:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 09:44 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 10:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:01 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 17:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 17:55 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 19:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 06:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 10:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 10:49 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 13:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 14:03 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 15:58 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-28 17:06 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 17:49 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-27 19:30 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 10:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 10:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 13:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 14:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-28 19:18 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:16 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 13:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 14:28 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:22 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 19:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-30 03:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 07:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Trevor <trevor@home.net> - 2017-09-29 19:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-29 18:48 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-27 15:22 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:49 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-27 17:54 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 06:41 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-25 18:03 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 07:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 10:09 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 10:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-26 19:44 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:15 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-27 01:14 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 17:58 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-27 03:37 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 06:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:02 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 11:04 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:16 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 18:06 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 18:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:22 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 11:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 18:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 19:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 23:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-27 15:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 23:25 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-28 18:20 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-28 18:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 18:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-28 19:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 20:57 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 06:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:17 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 10:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 11:16 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 12:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 14:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 13:21 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 14:08 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 15:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 16:02 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 18:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 19:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 20:11 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 07:03 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-30 11:56 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 16:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-30 19:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 19:10 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 19:33 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 20:43 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-30 11:51 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 14:16 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-30 17:45 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-01 08:10 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 13:44 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 11:01 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 13:10 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-02 13:31 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 18:27 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-02 13:46 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-10-02 14:32 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-02 14:43 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-10-02 14:50 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-02 15:08 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-10-02 16:35 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 19:55 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-10-03 07:14 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-10-03 20:01 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 16:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-30 17:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 18:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 20:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 06:21 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-01 07:33 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 13:46 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-01 17:01 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 11:34 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-10-02 16:49 +1100
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 19:48 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 13:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 14:31 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:40 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 20:06 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 07:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-29 16:26 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 07:29 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-29 16:41 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 07:55 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-29 17:16 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-30 08:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-29 19:42 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-30 11:58 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 15:37 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:48 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 18:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:59 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 09:11 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 23:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-28 18:21 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-28 21:02 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 15:38 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-09-29 16:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 17:04 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 18:32 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 19:30 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-29 19:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-29 20:45 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-30 11:54 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 20:25 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:50 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 19:36 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-22 18:07 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-23 13:19 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-23 10:08 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-23 20:24 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-09-23 10:33 +0000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-23 21:49 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-22 20:43 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 07:47 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 06:41 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-23 13:39 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 23:01 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 14:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 23:36 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 09:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-24 09:17 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 09:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 10:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-24 12:07 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 09:04 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-24 09:14 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-09-25 17:42 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-25 18:09 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-09-26 16:23 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-27 14:59 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-27 15:27 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-09-27 20:11 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-27 23:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> - 2017-09-28 18:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-28 18:34 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-23 18:12 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 20:05 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 12:47 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:45 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:46 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 20:03 -0500
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 10:20 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 10:15 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:41 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 11:21 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:26 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 13:38 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 13:53 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 14:18 +1000
Re: New phone scam (at least to me) felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-09-22 14:24 +1000
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 07:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <tNqdnSouF6OhQ1_EnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60955 |
On 21/09/2017 7:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> Felix wrote: >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Petzl wrote >>>>> >>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>> >>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>> >>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >> >> and his comments about the military leadership. > > State them. While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to make them. ""It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that the Australian Defence Force has a fundamentally broken approach to religion, an approach shaped partly by the triumph of bureaucratic administration over battlefield considerations but mostly by political correctness … "The ADF has a fundamentally flawed understanding of Islam. Just look at Iraq. I was one of the last Australians to serve there. All the politicians and military hierarchy were saying the withdrawal of Western military force was based on success. And yet al-Qaeda today controls more of Iraq than it ever did while Western forces were in the country …" and comments I don't agree about "Defence gave approval for its proud uniform to be paraded through the streets of Sydney during the Mardi Gras, sharing the road with pimps, prostitutes and purveyors of moral decadence," Mr Gaynor's press release read. "The supposedly apolitical ADF is now marching to the beat of a very political tune, drummed up by those who demand gay marriage and take pleasure in ridiculing Christianity. "Defence is bending over at every opportunity to help gay members but has hauled me over the coals for expressing my religious and political beliefs." Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say publicly and he breached them even after being warned. Let's see what the High Court says about those rules
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 08:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d9Wdna4LgYzQe1_EnZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60956 |
On 21/09/2017 7:31 AM, de chucka wrote: > On 21/09/2017 7:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>> Felix wrote: >>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>> >>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>> >>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>> >>> and his comments about the military leadership. >> >> State them. > > While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to > make them. I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I agree with not his views on Islam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos5rfs.oer.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60957 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > Felix wrote: > > > > > Rod Speed wrote: > > > > > > Petzl wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll never believe why the Army sacked > > > > > > > this decorated intelligence officer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo > > > > > > > > > > > > Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like > > > > > > that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. > > > > > > > > > > the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force > > > > > was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs > > > > > > > > and his comments about the military leadership. > > > > > > State them. > > > > While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to > > make them. > > I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I > agree with not his views on Islam Your history as an apologist for Islamic terrorists is well known, Ruth. No need to hang out the flag.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 10:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <f2j33cFgfavU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60959 |
On 21/09/2017 8:38 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>>> Felix wrote: >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>>>> and his comments about the military leadership. >>>> State them. >>> While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to >>> make them. >> I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I >> agree with not his views on Islam > Your history as an apologist for Islamic terrorists is well known, Ruth. > No need to hang out the flag. is it black with white squiggles on it?.. -- "I used to be forgettful and indecisive. Don't remember when. Think I was. Maybe not."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 10:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <SLCdnRKOwYlDxlnEnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60998 |
On 22/09/2017 10:16 AM, felix wrote: > On 21/09/2017 8:38 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>>>> Felix wrote: >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>>>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>>>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>>>>> and his comments about the military leadership. >>>>> State them. >>>> While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF >>>> officer to >>>> make them. >>> I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I >>> agree with not his views on Islam >> Your history as an apologist for Islamic terrorists is well known, Ruth. >> No need to hang out the flag. > > > is it black with white squiggles on it?.. > Mine is the Southern cross on the fly, Federation star on the lower hoist and the butchers apron in the canton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 19:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos8nt8.u2l.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60998 |
Felix wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > > > Felix wrote: > > > > > > > Rod Speed wrote: > > > > > > > > Petzl wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll never believe why the Army sacked > > > > > > > > > this decorated intelligence officer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff > > > > > > > > like that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the point is that his performance as a member of the > > > > > > > defence force was not in question he was only sacked > > > > > > > because of his beliefs > > > > > > > > > > > > and his comments about the military leadership. > > > > > > > > > > State them. > > > > > > > > While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF > > > > officer to make them. > > > > > > I should add that it is his comments on the political situation > > > that I agree with not his views on Islam > > > > Your history as an apologist for Islamic terrorists is well known, > > Ruth. No need to hang out the flag. > > is it black with white squiggles on it?.. Ge does sometimes seem that way, doesn't he?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 10:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ln16sc5heqlumacb9kf79tnujab3ljgcac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #60957 |
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:05:53 +1000, de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 21/09/2017 7:31 AM, de chucka wrote: >> On 21/09/2017 7:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>> Felix wrote: >>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>>> >>>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>>> >>>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>>> >>>> and his comments about the military leadership. >>> >>> State them. >> >> While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to >> make them. > >I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I >agree with not his views on Islam He was a Army Chaplain "the stupid shit he spewed." was his job? Replced by a Australian Army Iman for "the stupid shit he spewed."? http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-defence-force-to-get-its-first-muslim-imam-20150302-13t18l.html You think an Iman woul have better views? -- Petzl Same Sex Marriage It is ok to vote no. You'll never believe why the Army sacked this decorated intelligence officer https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 10:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <f2j3vlFgkglU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60966 |
On 21/09/2017 10:26 AM, Petzl wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:05:53 +1000, de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 21/09/2017 7:31 AM, de chucka wrote: >>> On 21/09/2017 7:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>>> Felix wrote: >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>>>> and his comments about the military leadership. >>>> State them. >>> While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF officer to >>> make them. >> I should add that it is his comments on the political situation that I >> agree with not his views on Islam > He was a Army Chaplain "the stupid shit he spewed." was his job? > > Replced by a Australian Army Iman for "the stupid shit he spewed."? > http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-defence-force-to-get-its-first-muslim-imam-20150302-13t18l.html > > You think an Iman woul have better views? his comments about Islam and the Army's attitude to it are spot on. some links http://www.smh.com.au/comment/christian-army-officer-bernie-gaynor-pays-the-price-for-marching-out-of-step-with-top-generals-20140709-zt1iq.html http://www.smh.com.au/comment/criticising-islam-gays-sets-army-major-up-for-a-fall-20140316-34va7.html http://bernardgaynor.com.au/press-release-defence-shows-hypocrisy-with-gay-officer/ http://bernardgaynor.com.au/the-australian-defence-force-islam/ -- "I used to be forgettful and indecisive. Don't remember when. Think I was. Maybe not."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos5ra8.oer.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60956 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > Felix wrote: > > > > Rod Speed wrote: > > > > > Petzl wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll never believe why the Army sacked > > > > > > this decorated intelligence officer > > > > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo > > > > > > > > > > Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like > > > > > that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. > > > > > > > > the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force > > > > was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs > > > > > > and his comments about the military leadership. > > > > State them. > > While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF > officer to make them. "Serving"? He was a reservist. > ""It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that the Australian Defence > Force has a fundamentally broken approach to religion, an approach > shaped partly by the triumph of bureaucratic administration over > battlefield considerations but mostly by political correctness ? He's right. But I don't think he puts enough emphasis on the invidious influernce of politicians. > "The ADF has a fundamentally flawed understanding of Islam. And he's right there, too. Though he doesn't go the full distance. > Just look at Iraq. I was one of the last Australians to serve there. > All the politicians and military hierarchy were saying the withdrawal > of Western military force was based on success. And yet al-Qaeda > today controls more of Iraq than it ever did while Western forces > were in the country ?" Right again, and again too little emphasis on political interference with the military. > and comments I don't agree about > "Defence gave approval for its proud uniform to be paraded through the > streets of Sydney during the Mardi Gras, sharing the road with pimps, > prostitutes and purveyors of moral decadence," Mr Gaynor's press release > read. He's right there, too. It is not within the ADF's brief to engage in partisan politics. > "The supposedly apolitical ADF is now marching to the beat of a very > political tune, drummed up by those who demand gay marriage and take > pleasure in ridiculing Christianity. He's right again. The ADF should stay OUT of that. > "Defence is bending over at every opportunity to help gay members but > has hauled me over the coals for expressing my religious and political > beliefs." And again. Seems that religions aren't the only threats to religious freedom. > Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say publicly > and he breached them even after being warned. And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? > Let's see what the High > Court says about those rules You should habe thought about that first, not last.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 09:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <GtidneK--4lYaV_EnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60958 |
On 21/09/2017 8:35 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>> Felix wrote: >>>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> Petzl wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'll never believe why the Army sacked >>>>>>> this decorated intelligence officer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/kbct75sVRXo >>>>>> >>>>>> Just the usual stupid shit. There is no reason why stuff like >>>>>> that would change if poofters are allowed to marry. >>>>> >>>>> the point is that his performance as a member of the defence force >>>>> was not in question he was only sacked because of his beliefs >>>> >>>> and his comments about the military leadership. >>> >>> State them. >> >> While I agree with his comments it is not up to a serving ADF >> officer to make them. > > "Serving"? He was a reservist. > >> ""It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that the Australian Defence >> Force has a fundamentally broken approach to religion, an approach >> shaped partly by the triumph of bureaucratic administration over >> battlefield considerations but mostly by political correctness ? > > He's right. But I don't think he puts enough emphasis on the > invidious influernce of politicians. > >> "The ADF has a fundamentally flawed understanding of Islam. > > And he's right there, too. Though he doesn't go the full distance. > >> Just look at Iraq. I was one of the last Australians to serve there. >> All the politicians and military hierarchy were saying the withdrawal >> of Western military force was based on success. And yet al-Qaeda >> today controls more of Iraq than it ever did while Western forces >> were in the country ?" > > Right again, and again too little emphasis on political interference > with the military. > >> and comments I don't agree about >> "Defence gave approval for its proud uniform to be paraded through the >> streets of Sydney during the Mardi Gras, sharing the road with pimps, >> prostitutes and purveyors of moral decadence," Mr Gaynor's press release >> read. > > He's right there, too. It is not within the ADF's brief to engage > in partisan politics. > >> "The supposedly apolitical ADF is now marching to the beat of a very >> political tune, drummed up by those who demand gay marriage and take >> pleasure in ridiculing Christianity. > > He's right again. The ADF should stay OUT of that. > >> "Defence is bending over at every opportunity to help gay members but >> has hauled me over the coals for expressing my religious and political >> beliefs." > > And again. Seems that religions aren't the only threats to religious > freedom. > >> Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say publicly >> and he breached them even after being warned. > > And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? The ADF can make comments as an organisation to the Govoment > >> Let's see what the High >> Court says about those rules > > You should habe thought about that first, not last. If you knew anything about the case you would know he won his first case on the basis that he was only a reservist and not on duty at the time This was overturned because he broke ADF rules ( and was warned not to continue to do so that includes a ban on posting material on social media that is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes including race, religion or gender. He tried to have it both ways
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 18:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos5u98.pt1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60960 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: < > > > > > Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say publicly > > > and he breached them even after being warned. > > > > And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? > > The ADF can make comments as an organisation to the Govoment Irrelevant. The boundary condition of "what ADF officers can say publicly" is YOURS, you weaselling cur. > > > Let's see what the High Court says about those rules > > > > You should have thought about that first, not last. > > If you knew anything about the case you would know he won his first case > on the basis that he was only a reservist and not on duty at the time > This was overturned because he broke ADF rules How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? > (and was warned not to continue to do so Where does your parenthetic statement end, Ruth? > that includes a ban on posting material on social media that > is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes > including race, religion or gender. That ban is illegitimate. > He tried to have it both ways So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter. How very unsurprising.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 09:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <gNKdndqSnK-LYl_EnZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60963 |
On 21/09/2017 9:26 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > < > > >>>> Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say publicly >>>> and he breached them even after being warned. >>> >>> And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? >> >> The ADF can make comments as an organisation to the Govoment > > Irrelevant. The boundary condition of "what ADF officers can say > publicly" is YOURS, you weaselling cur. No it isn't it is all set out in the Defence Force Discipline Act DFDA and the Public Service Act > >>>> Let's see what the High Court says about those rules >>> >>> You should have thought about that first, not last. >> >> If you knew anything about the case you would know he won his first case >> on the basis that he was only a reservist and not on duty at the time >> This was overturned because he broke ADF rules > > How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? They can't > >> (and was warned not to continue to do so > > Where does your parenthetic statement end, Ruth? > >> that includes a ban on posting material on social media that >> is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes >> including race, religion or gender. > > That ban is illegitimate. So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? How very unsurprising. We'll see if it goes to the HC > >> He tried to have it both ways > > So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter. > How very unsurprising. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 20:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos6409.s2o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60964 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > < > > > > > > > Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say > > > > > publicly and he breached them even after being warned. > > > > > > > > And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? > > > > > > The ADF can make comments as an organisation to the Govoment > > > > Irrelevant. The boundary condition of "what ADF officers can say > > publicly" is YOURS, you weaselling cur. > > No it isn't it is all set out in the Defence Force Discipline Act DFDA > and the Public Service Act Quit the weaselling. The boundary condition of what they may say was set for this exchange at PUBLICLY by you, so quit sleazing off it. What the ADF can do as an organisation talking to the government is irrelevant. > > > > > Let's see what the High Court says about those rules > > > > > > > > You should have thought about that first, not last. > > > > > > If you knew anything about the case you would know he won > > > his first case on the basis that he was only a reservist > > > and not on duty at the time This was overturned because > > > he broke ADF rules > > > > How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? > > They can't Then he didn't break them. > > > that includes a ban on posting material on social media that > > > is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes > > > including race, religion or gender. > > > > That ban is illegitimate. > > So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? Irrelevant. weasel. Courts judge rules' applicability, not their legitimacy. > How very unsurprising. Do try to think for yourse;f once in a while. > We'll see if it goes to the HC Seems to me he should take it as far as he needs to to get their censors off his back. If the rules allow him to enter politics, how can they possibly have any power over about what he says?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 11:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ppidnaYb5O8Tjl7EnZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60968 |
On 21/09/2017 11:04 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>> < > > >>>>>> Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say >>>>>> publicly and he breached them even after being warned. >>>>> >>>>> And what about the rules regarding the ADF and political matters? >>>> >>>> The ADF can make comments as an organisation to the Govoment >>> >>> Irrelevant. The boundary condition of "what ADF officers can say >>> publicly" is YOURS, you weaselling cur. >> >> No it isn't it is all set out in the Defence Force Discipline Act DFDA >> and the Public Service Act > > Quit the weaselling. The boundary condition of what they may say > was set for this exchange at PUBLICLY by you, so quit sleazing > off it. What the ADF can do as an organisation talking to the > government is irrelevant. Ned I answer your question ""what ADF officers can say publicly" is YOURS, you weaselling cur. What they can't say as an individual member of the ADF is clearly set out in the ADFA and PSA. Don't like it? Get it changed. > >>>>>> Let's see what the High Court says about those rules >>>>> >>>>> You should have thought about that first, not last. >>>> >>>> If you knew anything about the case you would know he won >>>> his first case on the basis that he was only a reservist >>>> and not on duty at the time This was overturned because >>>> he broke ADF rules >>> >>> How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? >> >> They can't > > Then he didn't break them. He was a serving member, if he wasn't how could they sack him. > >>>> that includes a ban on posting material on social media that >>>> is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes >>>> including race, religion or gender. >>> >>> That ban is illegitimate. >> >> So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? > > Irrelevant. weasel. Courts judge rules' applicability, not their > legitimacy. If they aren't applicable they are not legitimate > >> How very unsurprising. > > Do try to think for yourse;f once in a while. > >> We'll see if it goes to the HC > > Seems to me he should take it as far as he needs to to get their > censors off his back. >If the rules allow him to enter politics, > how can they possibly have any power over about what he says? If he was a member of the ADF when nominated and won he would be ineligible under Sect 44 FreeVKelly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 00:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos6l8t.3kh.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60970 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say > > > > > > > publicly and he breached them even after being warned. ----soace cleared for the weasel ti see what he wrote---- > > Quit the weaselling. The boundary condition of what they may say > > was set for this exchange at PUBLICLY by you, so quit sleazing > > off it. What the ADF can do as an organisation talking to the > > government is irrelevant. > > Ned I answer your question ""what ADF officers can say publicly" is > YOURS, No you didn't, you lying maggor. You ended your OP with an editorial, which is still here. Look above. > you weaselling cur. Is parrot what I say to you all you can do? > > > > How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? > > > > > > They can't > > > > Then he didn't break them. > > He was a serving member, if he wasn't how could they sack him. He was a reservist, How is that a serving memever? > > > > > that includes a ban on posting material on social media that > > > > > is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes > > > > > including race, religion or gender. > > > > > > > > That ban is illegitimate. > > > > > > So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? > > > > Irrelevant. weasel. Courts judge rules' applicability, not their > > legitimacy. > > If they aren't applicable they are not legitimate Crap. Laws against murder areb't applicable in fraud cases, but they are quite legitimate. > > > How very unsurprising. > > > > Do try to think for yourse;f once in a while. > > > > > We'll see if it goes to the HC > > > > Seems to me he should take it as far as he needs to to get their > > censors off his back. > > > > If the rules allow him to enter politics, > > how can they possibly have any power over about what he says? > > If he was a member of the ADF when nominated and won he would be > ineligible under Sect 44 FreeVKelly So he wasn't a member of the ADF.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 16:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <tYWdnSWwCokYyl7EnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60974 |
On 21/09/2017 3:58 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can say >>>>>>>> publicly and he breached them even after being warned. > > ----soace cleared for the weasel ti see what he wrote---- > >>> Quit the weaselling. The boundary condition of what they may say >>> was set for this exchange at PUBLICLY by you, so quit sleazing >>> off it. What the ADF can do as an organisation talking to the >>> government is irrelevant. >> >> Ned I answer your question ""what ADF officers can say publicly" is >> YOURS, > > No you didn't, you lying maggor. I'll answer it again it is all set out in the Defence Force Discipline Act DFDA and the Public Service Act You ended your OP with an editorial, > which is still here. Look above. my OP was this "Is this the bloke? "Reservist major Bernard Gaynor was dismissed in 2013 for making “offensive and divisive” statements about homosexual and transgender people and criticising Muslims. " Gaynor was also dumped as a Queensland Senate candidate for Katter’s Australia party over his comments, and was recently affiliated with the anti-Islam Australian Liberty Alliance party." wtf r u going on about > >> you weaselling cur. > > Is parrot what I say to you all you can do? > >>>>> How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? >>>> >>>> They can't >>> >>> Then he didn't break them. >> >> He was a serving member, if he wasn't how could they sack him. > > He was a reservist, How is that a serving memever? You are trolling aren't you? Please say you're trolling nobody could be that stupid > >>>>>> that includes a ban on posting material on social media that >>>>>> is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes >>>>>> including race, religion or gender. >>>>> >>>>> That ban is illegitimate. >>>> >>>> So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? >>> >>> Irrelevant. weasel. Courts judge rules' applicability, not their >>> legitimacy. >> >> If they aren't applicable they are not legitimate > > Crap. Laws against murder areb't applicable in fraud cases, but > they are quite legitimate. > >>>> How very unsurprising. >>> >>> Do try to think for yourse;f once in a while. >>> >>>> We'll see if it goes to the HC >>> >>> Seems to me he should take it as far as he needs to to get their >>> censors off his back. >>> >>> If the rules allow him to enter politics, >>> how can they possibly have any power over about what he says? >> >> If he was a member of the ADF when nominated and won he would be >> ineligible under Sect 44 FreeVKelly > > So he wasn't a member of the ADF. Of course he was, you know that rank he had and the tours of Iraq. Do you think he did that as a private citizen? :-) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 01:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos6mvh.4ot.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60976 |
>rd who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry but here are strict rules on what ADF officers can > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > publicly and he breached them even after being warned. ----soace cleared for the weasel ti see what he wrote---- > > Quit the weaselling. The boundary condition of what they may say > > was set for this exchange at PUBLICLY by you, so quit sleazing > > off it. What the ADF can do as an organisation talking to the > > government is irrelevant. > > Ned I answer your question ""what ADF officers can say publicly" is > YOURS, No you didn't, you lying maggor. You ended your OP with an editorial, which is still here. Look above. > you weaselling cur. Is parrot what I say to you all you can do? > > > > How do ADF rules apply if he's not a serving member? > > > > > > They can't > > > > Then he didn't break them. > > He was a serving member, if he wasn't how could they sack him. He was a reservist, How is that a serving memever? > > > > > that includes a ban on posting material on social media that > > > > > is offensive towards any group based on personal attributes > > > > > including race, religion or gender. > > > > > > > > That ban is illegitimate. > > > > > > So you're not waiting for the Court to judge the matter? > > > > Irrelevant. weasel. Courts judge rules' applicability, not their > > legitimacy. > > If they aren't applicable they are not legitimate Crap. Laws against murder areb't applicable in fraud cases, but they are quite legitimate. > > > How very unsurprising. > > > > Do try to think for yourse;f once in a while. > > > > > We'll see if it goes to the HC > > > > Seems to me he should take it as far as he needs to to get their > > censors off his back. > > > > If the rules allow him to enter politics, > > how can they possibly have any power over about what he says? > > If he was a member of the ADF when nominated and won he would be > ineligible under Sect 44 FreeVKelly So he wasn't a member of the ADF.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 16:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <wK-dneycIpG2wF7EnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #60979 |
snip If you're only going to snip my replies it is useless trying to educate you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 09:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnos7jqk.h0h.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #60982 |
The lying coward who hides behind the alias "de chucka" wrote: > snip > If you're only going to snip my replies it is useless trying > to educate you Channelling yoiurself again, Ruth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fran <franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 13:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oq2132$dvm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60982 |
On 21/09/2017 4:33 PM, de chucka wrote: > snip > If you're only going to snip my replies it is useless trying to educate you And it'd be useless anyway if you're talkgina bout Ned the Knob. He's a fully paid up, card carrying idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web