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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn11487o3.dnh5.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #69976 |
On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
> "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>
> An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
> is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
> argument.
>
> Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
> wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
> to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
> you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
> what you're talking about."
To be honest, I don't remember Simon ever saying that. "You don't have
any legal qualifications", sure. "You don't know what you're talking
about", sure. Perhaps that remedying the former could cure the latter.
But not that former necessarily implies the latter.
> And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
> the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
Haha. "Persistence" is an extremely charitable way of putting it.
Norman invariably either ignores, flatly denies, or posts nonsense
in response to valid arguments against whatever ludicrously position
he is purporting to hold at any particular time, so there is never
any point in engaging him in argument.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on
which he has admitted to changing his position in response to argument
- even after suffering some terrible accident which resulted in the
loss of several fingers. This leaves only ignoring him or mocking him,
although the latter will of course generally be rejected in the
moderated group.
> By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
> but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
> dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
>
> But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
> be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
> far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
> an ad-hom.
It's not an "ad-hominem argument" because his accusation of dishonesty
doesn't relate to an argument anyone else is making. But it does come
under moderation policy rule (a), which says that posts "will normally
be rejected if they imply that another contributor ... [is] dishonest".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nairihF70i0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69979 |
On 30/06/2026 20:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2026-06-30, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>> "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
>>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>>
>> An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
>> is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
>> argument.
>>
>> Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
>> wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
>> to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
>> you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
>> what you're talking about."
>
> To be honest, I don't remember Simon ever saying that. "You don't have
> any legal qualifications", sure. "You don't know what you're talking
> about", sure. Perhaps that remedying the former could cure the latter.
> But not that former necessarily implies the latter.
>
>> And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
>> the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
>
> Haha. "Persistence" is an extremely charitable way of putting it.
> Norman invariably either ignores, flatly denies, or posts nonsense
> in response to valid arguments against whatever ludicrously position
> he is purporting to hold at any particular time, so there is never
> any point in engaging him in argument.
Perhaps you don't have the intelligence to understand the points I
raise. But I always justify whatever I say, and am always happy to
argue the merits if anyone disagrees.
> I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on
> which he has admitted to changing his position in response to argument
> - even after suffering some terrible accident which resulted in the
> loss of several fingers. This leaves only ignoring him or mocking him,
> although the latter will of course generally be rejected in the
> moderated group.
Quite right too. I expect better.
>> By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
>> but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
>> dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
>>
>> But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
>> be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
>> far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
>> an ad-hom.
>
> It's not an "ad-hominem argument" because his accusation of dishonesty
> doesn't relate to an argument anyone else is making. But it does come
> under moderation policy rule (a), which says that posts "will normally
> be rejected if they imply that another contributor ... [is] dishonest".
Suppose another contributor is actually dishonest, which is not beyond
the realms of possibility. Are you saying that that truth should be
suppressed? That the truth is for some reason subservient to making the
dishonest poster feel better about himself?
What sort of world is that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 22:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naiqtbF70hvU19@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69976 |
On 30/06/2026 20:16, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
>>
>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>
> An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy whereby a person's character
> is attacked in lieu of any serious attempt at addressing their
> argument.
>
> Such as "you're stupid" or "you couldn't argue your way of
> wet paper bag"; or in the case of Simon Parker's response
> to some of Norman's points, the totally fallacious claim "because
> you haven't got any legal qualifications, you can't possibly know
> what you're talking about."
>
> And indeed because of his persistence Norman has himself been
> the subject of many ad hominem attacks down the years
>
> By way of contrast, in this instance, Norman is quite unambiguously
> but wrongly accusing another poster of being a thief, of being a
> dishonest person; at least as far as Norman understands things.
It's not a question of whether the person is dishonest as an intrinsic
characteristic but whether his appropriation of the property in question
was dishonest, which I think the evidence shows it was.
> But he is not thereby arguing that this person's arguments shouldn't
> be taken seriously simply because he was a thief. He has not, thus
> far at least accused him of lying. Which would indeed shade into
> an ad-hom.
No, he hasn't lied. But I think on the evidence that he has stolen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prngx4g8w0cj00z@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69975 |
On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
wrote:
>On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
>>wrote:
>>>On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>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."
>>>>
>>>>That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>
>>>How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>
>>Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>
>I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly against
another poster.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
How does a gender neutral bog differ from a unisex bog ?
It has a non-binary number on the door.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nairshF70hvU20@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69987 |
On 30/06/2026 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
> wrote:
>
>> On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>> 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."
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>
>>>> How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>
>>> Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>
>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>
> Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly against
> another poster.
which, if you actually look it up:
"attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of their opponent
rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument itself"
I have done nothing of the sort, but have concerned myself entirely with
the substance of the argument.
As always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 07:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0prr2tmgusfh2011@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69989 |
On 30/06/2026 in message <nairshF70hvU20@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:
>On 30/06/2026 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> Pamela
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>>>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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>>
>>>>>How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>>
>>>>Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>>
>>>I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>>another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>>
>>Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly against
>>another poster.
>
>which, if you actually look it up:
>
>"attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of their opponent
>rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument itself"
>
>I have done nothing of the sort, but have concerned myself entirely with
>the substance of the argument.
Apart from when calling somebody a thief of course.
>As always.
:-)
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
George Washington was a British subject until well after his 40th birthday.
(Margaret Thatcher, speech at the White House 17 December 1979)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 08:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <najvhbFkm5gU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70000 |
On 01/07/2026 08:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 30/06/2026 in message <nairshF70hvU20@mid.individual.net> Norman
> Wells wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2026 22:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>> Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>>>> Pamela
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>>>
>>>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>>>
>>> Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
>>> against another poster.
>>
>> which, if you actually look it up:
>>
>> "attacks the character, motive, or personal traits of their opponent
>> rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument itself"
>>
>> I have done nothing of the sort, but have concerned myself entirely
>> with the substance of the argument.
>
> Apart from when calling somebody a thief of course.
Quote anything I've posted where I've done that.
Or apologise for your memory loss and overly vivid imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB47C896F8433F1F3QA2@157.180.91.226> |
| In reply to | #69987 |
On 22:35 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
> Pamela wrote:
>>On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>>Pamela wrote:
>>>>On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>>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."
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>
>>>>How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>
>>>Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>
>>I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>
> Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
> against another poster.
My apologies as I hadn't realised the comment was made about someone in
this group. I wrongly thought it was some other person in another
situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 15:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nakn4eFp4auU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70008 |
On 01/07/2026 13:30, Pamela wrote:
> On 22:35 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>> Pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>>> Pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>>
>>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>>
>> Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
>> against another poster.
>
> My apologies as I hadn't realised the comment was made about someone in
> this group. I wrongly thought it was some other person in another
> situation.
It's still just a restatement of the facts he originally posted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 09:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB47D63053CC791F3QA2@157.180.91.226> |
| In reply to | #70011 |
On 15:39 1 Jul 2026, Norman Wells said:
> On 01/07/2026 13:30, Pamela wrote:
>> On 22:35 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47BC5BF44A7E1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>> Pamela wrote:
>>>> On 13:34 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>> On 30/06/2026 in message <XnsB47B87E4C333A1F3QA2@157.180.91.226>
>>>>> Pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 10:44 30 Jun 2026, Jeff Gaines said:
>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a personal attack Norman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Forgive my confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it, it is clearly a suggestion that a person is stealing gas.
>>>>
>>>> I thought we were talking about a personal attack ("ad hom") against
>>>> another poster. Not someone else being referred to.
>>>
>>> Many moons ago when I was a lad it was a statement made directly
>>> against another poster.
>>
>> My apologies as I hadn't realised the comment was made about someone in
>> this group. I wrongly thought it was some other person in another
>> situation.
>
> It's still just a restatement of the facts he originally posted.
That's how I originally read your post although I haven't closely followed
any finer points in the discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 16:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nafg4oFsum6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69900 |
On 29/06/2026 09:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: [ ... ] >> 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. I'mn not batting for the "Roland is a thief" side (far from it), but it IS possible to steal something without knowing (or caring) who the owner is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5099583550.e5cc89c2@uninhabited.net> |
| In reply to | #69916 |
On 29 Jun 2026 at 16:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 09:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote: > >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: > > [ ... ] > >>> 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. > > I'mn not batting for the "Roland is a thief" side (far from it), but it > IS possible to steal something without knowing (or caring) who the owner is. Indeed, I was making the case that the gas supplier was negligently defrauding the wholesaler by failing to pay the wholesaler for their customer's use (as well as carelessly failing to collect what was owed to them by Roland) and Roland was not responsible for the wholesaler's loss. The gas supplier made *no loss* as they never acknowledged their customer's use of the wholesaler's gas (and the latter therefore never knew about it), and Roland's obligation was to the utility company not the wholesaler. It is not that he took gas he did not know the owner of, he took gas he (rightly) believed to be the utility company's job to account for, and the latter utility suffered no loss as they never paid for or owned the gas. Any "dishonesty", more likely negligence, was that of the utility company. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nafp6hFo769U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69917 |
On 29/06/2026 17:36, Roger Hayter wrote: > On 29 Jun 2026 at 16:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 09:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> >> [ ... ] >> >>>> 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. >> >> I'mn not batting for the "Roland is a thief" side (far from it), but it >> IS possible to steal something without knowing (or caring) who the owner is. > > Indeed, I was making the case that the gas supplier was negligently defrauding > the wholesaler by failing to pay the wholesaler for their customer's use (as > well as carelessly failing to collect what was owed to them by Roland) and > Roland was not responsible for the wholesaler's loss. Where does all this obfuscatory nonsense come from? We don't know who paid whom or how much, except for Mr Perry who paid nothing. According to Mr Goodge, the likelihood and working assumption is that the property developer *was* paying the gas company for the gas being used, albeit at a bulk rate. > The gas supplier made > *no loss* as they never acknowledged their customer's use of the wholesaler's > gas (and the latter therefore never knew about it) Whoever's gas it was of course made a loss. Mr Perry wasn't paying for it. > and Roland's obligation > was to the utility company not the wholesaler. His responsibility was actually not to use it without paying, regardless of who owned the gas and regardless of any difficulties. > It is not that he took gas he > did not know the owner of, he took gas he (rightly) believed to be the utility > company's job to account for, and the latter utility suffered no loss as they > never paid for or owned the gas. You seem to be just making this up as you go along. We now apparently, and without precedent, have a gas supplier, a wholesaler and a utility company involved. Are they different or the same? And where does the property developer fit in? > Any "dishonesty", more likely negligence, was > that of the utility company. None of that entitled Mr Perry just to take it for free. And that's the bottom line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5909470977.7449a1a5@uninhabited.net> |
| In reply to | #69923 |
On 29 Jun 2026 at 18:43:45 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 17:36, Roger Hayter wrote: >> On 29 Jun 2026 at 16:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 09:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> I'mn not batting for the "Roland is a thief" side (far from it), but it >>> IS possible to steal something without knowing (or caring) who the owner is. >> >> Indeed, I was making the case that the gas supplier was negligently defrauding >> the wholesaler by failing to pay the wholesaler for their customer's use (as >> well as carelessly failing to collect what was owed to them by Roland) and >> Roland was not responsible for the wholesaler's loss. > > Where does all this obfuscatory nonsense come from? We don't know who > paid whom or how much, except for Mr Perry who paid nothing. According > to Mr Goodge, the likelihood and working assumption is that the property > developer *was* paying the gas company for the gas being used, albeit at > a bulk rate. > >> The gas supplier made >> *no loss* as they never acknowledged their customer's use of the wholesaler's >> gas (and the latter therefore never knew about it) > > Whoever's gas it was of course made a loss. Mr Perry wasn't paying for it. > >> and Roland's obligation >> was to the utility company not the wholesaler. > > His responsibility was actually not to use it without paying, regardless > of who owned the gas and regardless of any difficulties. > >> It is not that he took gas he >> did not know the owner of, he took gas he (rightly) believed to be the utility >> company's job to account for, and the latter utility suffered no loss as they >> never paid for or owned the gas. > > You seem to be just making this up as you go along. We now apparently, > and without precedent, have a gas supplier, a wholesaler and a utility > company involved. Are they different or the same? And where does the > property developer fit in? From the context "supplier" and "wholesaler" are synonyms in my explanation, and it is fairly well known that the utilities who sell gas and electricity are not the same people who arrange the distribution network (although some companies may do both through separate subsidiaries). And the distributors only know they have supplied gas to an address if the utility who reads the meter tells them. Though I expect they try to detect leaks. > >> Any "dishonesty", more likely negligence, was >> that of the utility company. > > None of that entitled Mr Perry just to take it for free. And that's the > bottom line. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nag221Fo76aU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69925 |
On 29/06/2026 19:51, Roger Hayter wrote: > On 29 Jun 2026 at 18:43:45 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 17:36, Roger Hayter wrote: >>> It is not that he took gas he >>> did not know the owner of, he took gas he (rightly) believed to be the utility >>> company's job to account for, and the latter utility suffered no loss as they >>> never paid for or owned the gas. >> >> You seem to be just making this up as you go along. We now apparently, >> and without precedent, have a gas supplier, a wholesaler and a utility >> company involved. Are they different or the same? And where does the >> property developer fit in? > > From the context "supplier" and "wholesaler" are synonyms in my explanation, > and it is fairly well known that the utilities who sell gas and electricity > are not the same people who arrange the distribution network (although some > companies may do both through separate subsidiaries). And the distributors > only know they have supplied gas to an address if the utility who reads the > meter tells them. Though I expect they try to detect leaks. So, in addition to a gas supplier, a wholesaler and a utility company, the first two of which are apparently synonymous in your fog of confusion, we now have to add utilities and distributors which might or might not be the same or similar. However, since it's all irrelevant, I can't be bothered even to try to sort out what you mean. The bottom line is what I set out below. >>> Any "dishonesty", more likely negligence, was >>> that of the utility company. >> >> None of that entitled Mr Perry just to take it for free. And that's the >> bottom line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111td4r$8195$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69899 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:naem2uFo769U1@mid.individual.net... > 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. Except he can't reasonably be expected to have known that, can he ? Who do "normal" people expect to pay for their gas ? Gas suppliers or property developers ? And of course this offers a satisfactory explanation of the whole saga As he explained Roland *repeatedly* contacted the gas supplier, for a bill. However all his requests were refused, quite simply because his gas was already being paid for by the developer. "Computer says no" in other words. Basically as it was, whatever Roland did it was impossible for him to pay for any gas; despite all his best efforts to do so. > Whatever, it seems he just rode his apparent good fortune and may not, even > now, have paid for the gas he used. Not if completely unknown to Roland it had already been paid for by the developer. No. Why should he have done ? Basically had it not been for the developers' mistake, Roland would have been sent a bill possibly without even having to ask for one and would have been paying for his gas immediately, on moving in. But Roland can't reasonably have been expected to know that the developer had made a mistake. nor can he be held responsible for it. It was in fact, as you now finally and grovellingly admit, "his apparent good fortune" bb .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naf432Fo769U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69903 |
On 29/06/2026 10:15, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:naem2uFo769U1@mid.individual.net... > >> 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. > > Except he can't reasonably be expected to have known that, can he ? I don't know. I've never bought direct from a developer. But the fact that the gas company hadn't heard of the property may reasonably have been some sort of alarm signal. > Who do "normal" people expect to pay for their gas ? Gas suppliers > or property developers ? Gas suppliers of course. But I suspect he would have contacted the developers if he found when he moved in that there was no gas being supplied to the premises, so it's not wholly unreasonable to suggest that he might have thought of contacting them when he couldn't raise a bill from the gas company. > And of course this offers a satisfactory explanation of the whole saga I don't think the situation was satisfactory at all. He wasn't paying for his gas, as he should have been. > As he explained Roland *repeatedly* contacted the gas supplier, for a bill. > > However all his requests were refused, quite simply because his gas was > already being paid for by the developer. "Computer says no" in other words. But he didn't say that, I don't think he knew that, and I don't think we know that for sure even now. If he did know it, that's a clear reason why he should have contacted the developer to sort the matter out. > Basically as it was, whatever Roland did it was impossible for him to pay > for any gas; despite all his best efforts to do so. For how long do you think that applies? Even several years? Forever? Something was clearly wrong, it needed to be resolved, and I think it was his responsibility to resolve it rather than just take whatever he wanted. >> Whatever, it seems he just rode his apparent good fortune and may not, even >> now, have paid for the gas he used. > > Not if completely unknown to Roland it had already been paid for by the > developer. No. > > Why should he have done ? If his supply had been cut off suddenly, I feel sure he would have resolved the situation somehow, perhaps by being a bit more curious about finding out who did it and why. > Basically had it not been for the developers' mistake, Roland would have > been sent a bill possibly without even having to ask for one and would > have been paying for his gas immediately, on moving in. > > But Roland can't reasonably have been expected to know that the developer > had made a mistake. nor can he be held responsible for it. Nor can he, reasonably, profit from it. If he couldn't pay for it, for whatever reason, he shouldn't be using it. > It was in fact, as you now finally and grovellingly admit, > > "his apparent good fortune" Well, of course it was, but it wasn't necessarily legal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naffvaFsum6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69899 |
On 29/06/2026 08:44 AM, Norman Wells 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. Isn't there a specific offence of (dishonest) "abstraction" of energy, possibly because of that very point? [ ... ]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5147473445.45fc04db@uninhabited.net> |
| In reply to | #69915 |
On 29 Jun 2026 at 16:06:18 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: > On 29/06/2026 08:44 AM, Norman Wells 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. > > Isn't there a specific offence of (dishonest) "abstraction" of energy, > possibly because of that very point? > > [ ... ] There is for electricity, probably because it is an intangible source of energy. Gas is a thing, so I don't think there is any difficulty about it being stolen and then destroyed - indeed it could be stolen and stored, though that would probably be a more serious offence. We need to look at the statutes governing utilities and see if they override the law of theft in any way. They probably do. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5153629806.44d88954@uninhabited.net> |
| In reply to | #69918 |
On 29 Jun 2026 at 17:44:35 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: > On 29 Jun 2026 at 16:06:18 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: > >> On 29/06/2026 08:44 AM, Norman Wells 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. >> >> Isn't there a specific offence of (dishonest) "abstraction" of energy, >> possibly because of that very point? >> >> [ ... ] > > There is for electricity, probably because it is an intangible source of > energy. Gas is a thing, so I don't think there is any difficulty about it > being stolen and then destroyed - indeed it could be stolen and stored, though > that would probably be a more serious offence. We need to look at the statutes > governing utilities and see if they override the law of theft in any way. > They probably do. Well actually we probably don't, because Norman is simply talking nonsense as usual. -- Roger Hayter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.net.news.moderation
csiph-web