Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.net.news.moderation > #69898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "billy bookcase" <bily@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-29 07:19 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-06-29 20:52 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 144 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.net.news.moderation
In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <bily@anon.com> - 2026-06-29 07:19 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 08:44 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 08:10 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 09:33 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-29 08:52 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 12:09 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-29 11:32 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 12:53 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-29 12:35 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 14:50 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-29 12:38 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 14:47 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-29 14:17 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 18:12 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-29 21:27 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-29 22:50 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 23:57 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:40 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:57 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-06-30 18:57 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:58 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-01 16:14 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:04 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-01 22:25 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:33 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-02 09:07 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 13:41 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-02 13:41 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-02 16:13 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:26 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-02 16:06 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-07-03 13:52 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-03 12:58 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:00 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:16 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-04 12:55 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 14:23 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-07-01 20:09 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:05 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 22:11 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 22:08 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:35 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> - 2026-07-03 14:53 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:02 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> - 2026-07-04 12:28 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 14:16 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 20:55 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-29 12:49 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 12:56 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-29 20:10 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 21:31 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 08:09 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 09:26 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 10:29 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 10:33 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 10:52 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 11:56 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 13:35 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 14:24 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 14:47 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 15:27 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 16:00 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:01 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-30 15:26 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:10 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-30 17:26 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 19:23 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 21:12 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:21 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 09:44 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 11:19 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 10:51 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 12:01 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 13:21 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 12:34 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 14:33 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 14:05 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 15:21 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-06-30 14:53 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 14:02 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-06-30 15:24 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 15:08 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:40 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-30 15:54 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:34 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 20:30 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 19:56 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:49 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 22:33 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 07:55 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 16:29 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:55 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:06 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 21:34 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 23:00 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-07-01 07:54 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-07-01 08:27 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 08:53 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-07-01 09:20 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 09:51 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-07-01 08:54 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-07-01 13:35 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-07-01 14:01 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:53 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 16:00 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-07-01 15:20 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-07-02 07:48 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-07-01 07:43 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 09:02 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:56 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-01 07:46 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 09:05 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:32 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 17:20 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 15:41 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 16:55 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 20:50 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:52 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:26 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-30 20:16 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-06-30 19:54 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:42 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:31 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-06-30 21:35 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-30 22:48 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-07-01 07:48 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 08:56 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:30 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-07-01 15:39 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:09 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 16:36 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 18:43 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 18:51 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 21:14 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> - 2026-06-29 10:15 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 12:43 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:06 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 16:44 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 16:45 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 18:03 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 18:00 +0100
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2026-06-29 18:33 +0000
Re: In anticipation of Normans' next whinge Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-29 20:52 +0100
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "billy bookcase" <bily@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 07:19 +0100 |
| Subject | In anticipation of Normans' next whinge |
| Message-ID | <111t2pb$4uui$1@dont-email.me> |
In his latest rejected post Norman states thge following quote > When you refer to the law that exists in black and white (as I have, in > accordance with what this group is about) and cite the provision that > you say entitles someone to take anything without paying and without > permission from its owner then I'll believe it is not theft. :unquote Whereas what the law actually states is quote: 1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another *with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;* and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly. :unquote https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft Roland insiste that he contacted the supplier on numerous ocassions requesting a bill The only possible inference any reasonable person can draw from that is that far from "permanently depriving" the gas company of anything Rokland had every intention of paying for the gas used once the gas company calculated a bill, presumably based on his current usage and the current meter reading. bb
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 08:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naem2uFo769U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69898 |
On 29/06/2026 07:19, billy bookcase wrote: > In his latest rejected post Norman states thge following > > quote > >> When you refer to the law that exists in black and white (as I have, in >> accordance with what this group is about) and cite the provision that >> you say entitles someone to take anything without paying and without >> permission from its owner then I'll believe it is not theft. > > :unquote > > Whereas what the law actually states is > > quote: > > 1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property > belonging to another > > *with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;* > > and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed > accordingly. > > :unquote > > https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft > > Roland insiste that he contacted the supplier on numerous ocassions > requesting a bill > > The only possible inference any reasonable person can draw from that > is that far from "permanently depriving" the gas company of anything No, 'permanently depriving' the other of the property means not giving it back. The gas was used. It could not be handed back. > Rokland had every intention of paying for the gas used once the gas > company calculated a bill, presumably based on his current usage > and the current meter reading. What that actually goes to is the question of whether he 'dishonestly' deprived the owner of the property of it. And there's a whole Section of the Theft Act (Section 2) that deals with that and explains it further. He clearly knew his legal and moral obligations about paying for the gas and obviously had a good intention to pay for it up to the point where he contacted the supply company. But he continued to use it well after that, for at least two years it appears, without reply, without stopping, without paying, and with no agreement that he could use it for free. When does that become dishonest? Immediately, after a year, two years, indefinitely? There must be a point when it ceases to be conveniently fortuitous. Anyway, according to Mr Goodge, he was probably barking up the wrong tree. If the developer had been paying for the gas, at whatever rate it did, it belonged to the developer not the gas company, and it was the developer he was depriving and should have been contacting. Whatever, it seems he just rode his apparent good fortune and may not, even now, have paid for the gas he used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 08:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2062823774.17f4ce3c@uninhabited.net> |
| In reply to | #69899 |
On 29 Jun 2026 at 08:44:29 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 07:19, billy bookcase wrote: >> In his latest rejected post Norman states thge following >> >> quote >> >>> When you refer to the law that exists in black and white (as I have, in >>> accordance with what this group is about) and cite the provision that >>> you say entitles someone to take anything without paying and without >>> permission from its owner then I'll believe it is not theft. >> >> :unquote >> >> Whereas what the law actually states is >> >> quote: >> >> 1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property >> belonging to another >> >> *with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;* >> >> and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed >> accordingly. >> >> :unquote >> >> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft >> >> Roland insiste that he contacted the supplier on numerous ocassions >> requesting a bill >> >> The only possible inference any reasonable person can draw from that >> is that far from "permanently depriving" the gas company of anything > > No, 'permanently depriving' the other of the property means not giving > it back. The gas was used. It could not be handed back. > >> Rokland had every intention of paying for the gas used once the gas >> company calculated a bill, presumably based on his current usage >> and the current meter reading. > > What that actually goes to is the question of whether he 'dishonestly' > deprived the owner of the property of it. And there's a whole Section > of the Theft Act (Section 2) that deals with that and explains it further. > > He clearly knew his legal and moral obligations about paying for the gas > and obviously had a good intention to pay for it up to the point where > he contacted the supply company. But he continued to use it well after > that, for at least two years it appears, without reply, without > stopping, without paying, and with no agreement that he could use it for > free. > > When does that become dishonest? Immediately, after a year, two years, > indefinitely? > > There must be a point when it ceases to be conveniently fortuitous. > > Anyway, according to Mr Goodge, he was probably barking up the wrong > tree. If the developer had been paying for the gas, at whatever rate it > did, it belonged to the developer not the gas company, and it was the > developer he was depriving and should have been contacting. Whatever, > it seems he just rode his apparent good fortune and may not, even now, > have paid for the gas he used. If you actually want to pursue your quixotic, indeed somewhat silly, argument then you need to establish who was the owner of the gas that Roland used. The gas remains the property of the wholesale gas supplier until the utility company adopts Roland's supply and pays the wholesaler for it. But Roland is not depriving the wholesaler of his gas (or value thereof), the utility company is by failing to record Roland's usage and pay for it. So according to your argument the utility company is the thief. Roland cannot be stealing from the utility company, as it has never possessed the gas. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 09:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69900 |
On 29/06/2026 09:10, Roger Hayter wrote: > On 29 Jun 2026 at 08:44:29 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: > >> On 29/06/2026 07:19, billy bookcase wrote: >>> In his latest rejected post Norman states thge following >>> >>> quote >>> >>>> When you refer to the law that exists in black and white (as I have, in >>>> accordance with what this group is about) and cite the provision that >>>> you say entitles someone to take anything without paying and without >>>> permission from its owner then I'll believe it is not theft. >>> >>> :unquote >>> >>> Whereas what the law actually states is >>> >>> quote: >>> >>> 1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property >>> belonging to another >>> >>> *with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;* >>> >>> and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed >>> accordingly. >>> >>> :unquote >>> >>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft >>> >>> Roland insiste that he contacted the supplier on numerous ocassions >>> requesting a bill >>> >>> The only possible inference any reasonable person can draw from that >>> is that far from "permanently depriving" the gas company of anything >> >> No, 'permanently depriving' the other of the property means not giving >> it back. The gas was used. It could not be handed back. >> >>> Rokland had every intention of paying for the gas used once the gas >>> company calculated a bill, presumably based on his current usage >>> and the current meter reading. >> >> What that actually goes to is the question of whether he 'dishonestly' >> deprived the owner of the property of it. And there's a whole Section >> of the Theft Act (Section 2) that deals with that and explains it further. >> >> He clearly knew his legal and moral obligations about paying for the gas >> and obviously had a good intention to pay for it up to the point where >> he contacted the supply company. But he continued to use it well after >> that, for at least two years it appears, without reply, without >> stopping, without paying, and with no agreement that he could use it for >> free. >> >> When does that become dishonest? Immediately, after a year, two years, >> indefinitely? >> >> There must be a point when it ceases to be conveniently fortuitous. >> >> Anyway, according to Mr Goodge, he was probably barking up the wrong >> tree. If the developer had been paying for the gas, at whatever rate it >> did, it belonged to the developer not the gas company, and it was the >> developer he was depriving and should have been contacting. Whatever, >> it seems he just rode his apparent good fortune and may not, even now, >> have paid for the gas he used. > > If you actually want to pursue your quixotic, indeed somewhat silly, argument > then you need to establish who was the owner of the gas that Roland used. No I don't. It clearly belonged to someone, and that someone's identity need not be determined. It is perfectly possible to steal something where the owner is not specifically identified. And if you want to call my argument quixotic and silly, you really need to read what the law says and justify what you say on that basis and with reference to it. > The gas remains the property of the wholesale gas supplier until the utility > company adopts Roland's supply and pays the wholesaler for it. Is anyone arguing otherwise? > But Roland is > not depriving the wholesaler of his gas (or value thereof), the utility > company is by failing to record Roland's usage and pay for it. So according to > your argument the utility company is the thief. Roland cannot be stealing from > the utility company, as it has never possessed the gas. He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non-payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently of it. Now compare that with the definition of theft in the Theft Act and argue, if you can, that it wasn't theft.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 08:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prli8he27hvw00m@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69901 |
On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote: >He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non-payment >agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently of >it. May I make a suggestion? If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for it, then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). They may even be of interest to some people. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they will stop making it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69902 |
On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: > On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > wrote: > >> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non-payment >> agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently >> of it. > > May I make a suggestion? > > If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly > without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for it, > then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise known to > pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). The above are the *facts* of the situation as he himself described. It's hardly a personal attack to repeat them. If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prlmhle7xiwx00n@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69904 |
On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote: >On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote: >> >>>He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non-payment >>>agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently of >>>it. >> >>May I make a suggestion? >> >>If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for it, >>then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise known to >>pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). > >The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >hardly a personal attack to repeat them. > >If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it occurs, >feel free, but it will be read the same way. If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if people are to read them, your choice. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK I've been through the desert on a horse with no name. It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naf4mcFo769U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69905 |
On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: > On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > wrote: > >> On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>> Wells wrote: >>> >>>> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- >>>> payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, >>>> permanently of it. >>> >>> May I make a suggestion? >>> >>> If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>> without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for >>> it, then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise >>> known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >> >> The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >> hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >> >> If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it >> occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way. > > If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. > > I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if > people are to read them, your choice. Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying the law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to anonymise the analysis as if it wasn't him. By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn1144pkq.dnh5.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #69908 |
On 2026-06-29, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >> wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>> Wells wrote: >>>>> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- >>>>> payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, >>>>> permanently of it. >>>> >>>> May I make a suggestion? >>>> >>>> If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>>> without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for >>>> it, then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise >>>> known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>> >>> The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >>> hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>> >>> If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it >>> occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way. >> >> If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >> >> I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if >> people are to read them, your choice. > > Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. > I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying the > law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to anonymise the > analysis as if it wasn't him. > > By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. You've directly called him dishonest, which would not be permitted even if it was true, which it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nafbhcFo769U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69910 |
On 29/06/2026 13:35, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2026-06-29, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>> wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>> Wells wrote: >>>>>> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- >>>>>> payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, >>>>>> permanently of it. >>>>> >>>>> May I make a suggestion? >>>>> >>>>> If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>>>> without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for >>>>> it, then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise >>>>> known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>>> >>>> The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >>>> hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>>> >>>> If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it >>>> occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way. >>> >>> If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >>> >>> I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if >>> people are to read them, your choice. >> >> Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. >> I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying the >> law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to anonymise the >> analysis as if it wasn't him. >> >> By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. > > You've directly called him dishonest No I haven't. If you disagree, quote me. > which would not be permitted even if it was true, which it isn't. Why not? Are you generally against the truth, or only when it suits you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prlo74ea9c4q00o@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69908 |
On 29/06/2026 in message <naf4mcFo769U5@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote: >On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote: >> >>>On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- payment >>>>>agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently >>>>>of it. >>>> >>>>May I make a suggestion? >>>> >>>>If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>>>without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for it, >>>>then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise known to >>>>pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>> >>>The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >>>hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>> >>>If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it occurs, >>>feel free, but it will be read the same way. >> >>If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >> >>I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if >>people are to read them, your choice. > >Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. I've >just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying the law to >them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to anonymise the analysis >as if it wasn't him. Because it's a personal attack and so rejected. >By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. Yes you have, for some reason you refuse to recognise it as such. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nafbbqFo76aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69911 |
On 29/06/2026 13:38, Jeff Gaines wrote: > On 29/06/2026 in message <naf4mcFo769U5@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman >>> Wells wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>> Wells wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- >>>>>> payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, >>>>>> permanently of it. >>>>> >>>>> May I make a suggestion? >>>>> >>>>> If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, >>>>> possibly without paying for it and possibly with no intention of >>>>> paying for it, then your posts cease to look like a personal >>>>> attack (otherwise known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>>> >>>> The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. >>>> It's hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>>> >>>> If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it >>>> occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way. >>> >>> If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >>> >>> I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised >>> if people are to read them, your choice. >> >> Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. >> I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying >> the law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to >> anonymise the analysis as if it wasn't him. > > Because it's a personal attack and so rejected. Please quote what you actually object to from any of my posts. Implying and insinuating what I've said when I haven't is, I suggest, dishonest. >> By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. > > Yes you have, for some reason you refuse to recognise it as such. Quotes please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prlquaedsqf200p@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69912 |
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafbbqFo76aU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote: >On 29/06/2026 13:38, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>On 29/06/2026 in message <naf4mcFo769U5@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote: >>>On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>>>wrote: >>>>>On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>>>On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- payment >>>>>>>agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that was, permanently >>>>>>>of it. >>>>>> >>>>>>May I make a suggestion? >>>>>> >>>>>>If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, possibly >>>>>>without paying for it and possibly with no intention of paying for it, >>>>>>then your posts cease to look like a personal attack (otherwise known >>>>>>to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>>>> >>>>>The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. It's >>>>>hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>>>> >>>>>If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it occurs, >>>>>feel free, but it will be read the same way. >>>> >>>>If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >>>> >>>>I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are anonymised if >>>>people are to read them, your choice. >>> >>>Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. >>>I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying the >>>law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to anonymise the >>>analysis as if it wasn't him. >> >>Because it's a personal attack and so rejected. > >Please quote what you actually object to from any of my posts. Implying >and insinuating what I've said when I haven't is, I suggest, dishonest. I don't object to anything. It's a moderated group and personal attacks are prohibited. >>>By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. >> >>Yes you have, for some reason you refuse to recognise it as such. > >Quotes please. Not up to me Norman, if you can't see the issue so be it. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK There's 2 typos of peoples in this world. Those who always notice spelling & grammatical errors, & them who doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69914 |
On 29/06/2026 15:17, Jeff Gaines wrote: > On 29/06/2026 in message <nafbbqFo76aU1@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > wrote: > >> On 29/06/2026 13:38, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naf4mcFo769U5@mid.individual.net> Norman >>> Wells wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net> Norman >>>>> Wells wrote: >>>>>> On 29/06/2026 09:52, Jeff Gaines wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/06/2026 in message <naeov1Fo769U2@mid.individual.net> >>>>>>> Norman Wells wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He was using the gas without payment and without any valid non- >>>>>>>> payment agreement. He was depriving its owner, whoever that >>>>>>>> was, permanently of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> May I make a suggestion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you word your point around an anonymous person using gas, >>>>>>> possibly without paying for it and possibly with no intention of >>>>>>> paying for it, then your posts cease to look like a personal >>>>>>> attack (otherwise known to pretentious twats as an "ad hom"). >>>>>> >>>>>> The above are the facts of the situation as he himself described. >>>>>> It's hardly a personal attack to repeat them. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to replace 'he' by 'an anonymous person' wherever it >>>>>> occurs, feel free, but it will be read the same way. >>>>> >>>>> If you make personal attacks the posts will be rejected, it's simple. >>>>> >>>>> I enjoy most of your posts but you need to ensure they are >>>>> anonymised if people are to read them, your choice. >>>> >>>> Why? It was a matter he initiated about his own personal situation. >>>> I've just been considering the facts as he stated them and applying >>>> the law to them. In such circumstances, it's absurd to try to >>>> anonymise the analysis as if it wasn't him. >>> >>> Because it's a personal attack and so rejected. >> >> Please quote what you actually object to from any of my posts. >> Implying and insinuating what I've said when I haven't is, I suggest, >> dishonest. > > I don't object to anything. It's a moderated group and personal attacks > are prohibited. Where have I attacked anyone? Please quote what I've said where you think I have Implying and insinuating what I've said when I haven't is, I suggest, dishonest. Anyway, what in your view constitutes a 'personal attack' and why doesn't that apply when I am the object of them as I am on a regular basis? In what way have they been 'prohibited'? >>>> By the way, I've made no personal attacks on anyone. >>> >>> Yes you have, for some reason you refuse to recognise it as such. >> >> Quotes please. > > Not up to me Norman, if you can't see the issue so be it. It is up to you. You were the one who said above 'Because it's a personal attack'. If you can't support your own points, that's a bit pathetic, isn't it? And I don't think you can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prm25pet66x600q@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69922 |
On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote: [snipped] If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. Grow up. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn1145tku.dnh5.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #69930 |
On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > wrote: > > [snipped] > > If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? He just humiliates himself over and over and over again. He's been doing it for going on two decades now. Why would anyone behave like this? It's inexplicably bizarre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 23:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nagbj3Fo769U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69931 |
On 29/06/2026 23:50, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >> wrote: >> >> [snipped] >> >> If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. > > This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? > He just humiliates himself over and over and over again. > He's been doing it for going on two decades now. Why would > anyone behave like this? It's inexplicably bizarre. What is a legal discussion forum for if not to discuss legal matters? Descending to personal insults because you have no answers is rather pathetic don't you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l9s74l1bjhktnh3c9cgcaockjsis060ot0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69931 |
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: >On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >> wrote: >> >> [snipped] >> >> If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. > >This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in protracted exchanges with him. >He just humiliates himself over and over and over again. >He's been doing it for going on two decades now. Why would >anyone behave like this? It's inexplicably bizarre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 17:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naiarqF70hvU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69968 |
On 30/06/2026 17:40, Martin Harran wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens > <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: > >> On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snipped] >>> >>> If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. >> >> This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? > > An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in > protracted exchanges with him. It's probably the only intelligence they ever encounter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20260630185758.2dbf06c881925d1708a81040@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #69968 |
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:40:13 +0100 Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens > <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: > > >On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells > >> wrote: > >> > >> [snipped] > >> [Norm] > > > >This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? > > An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in > protracted exchanges with him. > or you could try debating with him about Galileo v the RC church. [] -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.net.news.moderation
csiph-web