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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naldumFp4atU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70017 |
On 01/07/2026 20:09, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100 > Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: >>> 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. >>> [] >> >> In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. > > You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you > respond. Sorry, but I don't recognise that allegation at all. It's really not my style. Do you perhaps have some examples with which you can regale us or even refer to with message ids? Just one would be a start, if you can. But I doubt if you'll be able. Anyway, what's this vague allusion to Galileo about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 08:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k35c4l5sb244qe7mdoalotia7n5ojmpk10@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70020 |
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:08:38 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >On 01/07/2026 20:09, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:58:24 +0100 >> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:57:58 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" >>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> [] >>> >>> In fairness to him, he hasn't branded me a liar and a quote-miner. >> >> You must try harder, he's not reposting a 50k screed of text each time you >> respond. > >Sorry, but I don't recognise that allegation at all. It's really not my >style. > >Do you perhaps have some examples with which you can regale us or even >refer to with message ids? Just one would be a start, if you can. But >I doubt if you'll be able. > >Anyway, what's this vague allusion to Galileo about? > It's another ng where John and I participate,, nothing to do with UKLM or yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 14:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7grkhmxk3e.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> |
| In reply to | #69973 |
On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > 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. Pope John Paul II issued a correction: Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture... Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g., denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e0qh4l928ubrkcr0pcdeppul0cv6jls2va@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70035 |
On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 14:53:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > >> 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. > >Pope John Paul II issued a correction: > > Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on > different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the > experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as > the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a > planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when > they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our > understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, > imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture... > >Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g., >denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC). Mostly an American evangelical thing, you don't get much of it this side of the Atlantic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dc7nhmx9t6.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> |
| In reply to | #70037 |
On 2026-07-04, Martin Harran wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 14:53:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> > wrote: > >>On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>Pope John Paul II issued a correction: >> >> Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on >> different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the >> experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as >> the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a >> planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when >> they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our >> understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, >> imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture... >> >>Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g., >>denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC). > > Mostly an American evangelical thing, you don't get much of it this > side of the Atlantic Fortunately not yet, but they are trying to export various aspects of extremist Protestantism here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qo1i4l58arridl7jdfd00ovo4f1a41mqqp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70038 |
On Sat, 04 Jul 2026 12:28:45 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >On 2026-07-04, Martin Harran wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 14:53:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On 2026-06-30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Pope John Paul II issued a correction: >>> >>> Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on >>> different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the >>> experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as >>> the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a >>> planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when >>> they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our >>> understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, >>> imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture... >>> >>>Literalism against science is now a far-Protestant problem (e.g., >>>denial of evolution, which is no longer an issue for the RCC). >> >> Mostly an American evangelical thing, you don't get much of it this >> side of the Atlantic > >Fortunately not yet, but they are trying to export various aspects of >extremist Protestantism here. The Intelligent Design movement tried to get going in the UK but seem to have got nowhere. They set up a UK Centre for Intelligent Design in 2009 but it sems to have gone extinct (pun deliberate) - the website is certainly dead. http://www.c4id.org.uk/ Somebody tried back in 2022 to get a petition going for "Give all schools in the UK the freedom to teach intelligent design as legitimate" but it was rejected out of hand on the grounds that it's about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not directly responsible for. https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/628266 Somebody else tried again in 2025 with "Include science based Intelligently Designed Creation in the Science Curriculum" but it only ever got 31 signatures. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/706659 The only political party that I ever knew to support this stuff is the DUP but they have other matters to absorb their attention right now!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <112170o$1cp6g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69968 |
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l9s74l1bjhktnh3c9cgcaockjsis060ot0@4ax.com... > On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:50:06 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens > <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: > >>On 2026-06-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 in message <nafnchFo769U10@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snipped] >>> >>> If you want to continue to be a total cunt Norman then be my guest. >> >>This is the enduring mystery. Why on earth does he do this? > > An even bigger mystery is why otherwise sensible people engage in > protracted exchanges with him. As opposed to the benefits everyone else has accrued; as a result of spending decades engaging with the more sensible posters on UseNet bb https://usenetarchives.com/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111tm5p$al31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69904 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... > 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. If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send him gas bills ? bb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69907 |
On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >> 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. > > If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for > any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send > him gas bills ? Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: "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."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111ufv0$ioeb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69909 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net... > On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >>> 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. >> >> If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for >> any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send >> him gas bills ? > > Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: Ah right ! "Just for clarity " IOW let's not talk about the statement you made which was just plain false. Lets talk about something else you said instead; where you hope you might have better luck, > > "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. And up to the point where he contacted the gas company the second time. And the thrird time. > 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." But he would have been quite happy to pay for it at any stage. And there was never any intention on his part not to pay. bb >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 21:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nag31cFo76aU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69926 |
On 29/06/2026 20:10, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net... >> On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >>>> 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. >>> >>> If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for >>> any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send >>> him gas bills ? >> >> Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: > > Ah right ! "Just for clarity " > > IOW let's not talk about the statement you made which was just plain > false. The statement I made that was quoted above was: "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." Is that what you mean or was it perhaps in my only other statement here where I said: "The above are the *facts* of the situation as he himself described"? In either case, what is 'just plain false' about it? > Lets talk about something else you said instead; where you hope > you might have better luck, Oh, you mean something else I said somewhere else that I should have guessed without even a clue was what you meant? >> "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. > > And up to the point where he contacted the gas company the second time. > > And the thrird time. > >> 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." > > But he would have been quite happy to pay for it at any stage. You can't possibly know that at any time after he contacted the supply company. And the length of time he continued to use the gas after that, without making any further attempt to pay, would indicate that he was perfectly happy with taking it for free for as long as he wasn't caught out. I ask again since you have avoided answering before, how long is it acceptable for anyone in his position to continue using gas without paying for it? Days, months, years, decades, what? > And there was never any intention on his part not to pay. Really? On what do you base that? Has he paid up since?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 08:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111vq3d$t78i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69929 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nag31cFo76aU4@mid.individual.net... > On 29/06/2026 20:10, billy bookcase wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net... >>> On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>> news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for >>>> any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send >>>> him gas bills ? >>> >>> Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: >> >> Ah right ! "Just for clarity " >> >> IOW let's not talk about the statement you made which was just plain >> false. > > The statement I made that was quoted above was: > > "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." You have no evidence whatsoever, that he didn't intend to eventually pay for it. Anyone who buys anything whether in cash or on credit is "depriving the owner of it, permanently". That aspect is totally irrelevant. All that matters is whether there is any intention to pay for it. Either immediately; or at some point in the future And just to remind you, you stated it as a *fact*, just as in the case of the anonymous person cited by Jeff Gaines as quoted above, that Roland had *no intention of paying for any gas*. Which of course, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is grossly defamatory So that unless you can provide some sort of explanation as to why you believe Roland didn't intend to pay for that gas, one can only assume, that as with your unfounded accusations in the IHT widow thread, your judgement has been totally warped by your deep seated animosity towards Roland. The reason, or reasons for which, can only be guessed at, bb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 09:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nahcucF70hvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69933 |
On 30/06/2026 08:09, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:nag31cFo76aU4@mid.individual.net... >> On 29/06/2026 20:10, billy bookcase wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> news:naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: >>>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>>> news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for >>>>> any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send >>>>> him gas bills ? >>>> >>>> Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: >>> >>> Ah right ! "Just for clarity " >>> >>> IOW let's not talk about the statement you made which was just plain >>> false. >> >> The statement I made that was quoted above was: >> >> "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." > > You have no evidence whatsoever, that he didn't intend to eventually > pay for it. Indeed. There's no evidence that he did either. All we have is probability based on what he actually did. For example, if the answer to the question 'Did he pay for it eventually?', as I posed earlier, is 'no', that's one clear indicator I'd have thought that he didn't have any such intention. How about you? In any case, as Section 2(2) of the Theft Act says: "(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property" so your criterion is certainly not decisive. Were it not so, any shoplifter on the odd occasion he's caught with goods up his jumper would have a ready-made get-out-of-jail-free that (of course) he's willing (on that occasion) to pay for them. I suggest it doesn't work like that, nor should it. > Anyone who buys anything whether in cash or on credit is "depriving > the owner of it, permanently". > > That aspect is totally irrelevant. I agree. It's just a fact in this case that is not in dispute. > All that matters is whether there is any intention to pay for it. > Either immediately; or at some point in the future It's not his choice when he pays. You can't just walk out of a shop with some goods and say bye, I'll pay you in ten years time. If you want the goods now, you pay for them now or you make an agreement for future payment, neither of which applies in the case we're considering. If you do neither, it's theft. > And just to remind you, you stated it as a *fact*, just as in the > case of the anonymous person cited by Jeff Gaines as quoted above, > that Roland had *no intention of paying for any gas*. > > Which of course, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, > is grossly defamatory Well, it could be, but only if someone had said exactly that, which no-one has, and certainly not me. > So that unless you can provide some sort of explanation as to > why you believe Roland didn't intend to pay for that gas, I have referred before to the circumstances as we know them that might reasonably lead to that conclusion. He appropriated and used the gas without payment at the time or any agreement for non-payment or deferred payment. He made some effort initially to be billed, but those efforts ceased when it got difficult. He nevertheless continued to use the gas, despite there being no resolution, for a considerable period thereafter. The likelihood, in my opinion, is that he would have continued in that vein indefinitely. And, as far as we know, he never did pay for it. How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the gas without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. > one can only > assume, that as with your unfounded accusations in the IHT widow thread, > your judgement has been totally warped by your deep seated animosity > towards Roland. Not so. I deal with the facts and apply the law to them, impersonally and independent of whose situations they are. And I don't make unfounded accusations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 10:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1120297$vkjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69934 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nahcucF70hvU1@mid.individual.net... > On 30/06/2026 08:09, billy bookcase wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:nag31cFo76aU4@mid.individual.net... >>> On 29/06/2026 20:10, billy bookcase wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>> news:naf4scFo769U6@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 29/06/2026 12:49, billy bookcase wrote: >>>>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>>>> news:naf23rFo769U3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> If as you claim it's a *fact*, that Roland had no intention of paying for >>>>>> any gas, could you please explain why he repeatedly asked them to send >>>>>> him gas bills ? >>>>> >>>>> Just for clarity, let me repeat what I said earlier this morning: >>>> >>>> Ah right ! "Just for clarity " >>>> >>>> IOW let's not talk about the statement you made which was just plain >>>> false. >>> >>> The statement I made that was quoted above was: >>> >>> "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." >> >> You have no evidence whatsoever, that he didn't intend to eventually >> pay for it. > > Indeed. There's no evidence that he did either. All we have is probability > based on what he actually did. For example, if the answer to the question > 'Did he pay for it eventually?', as I posed earlier, is 'no', that's one clear > indicator I'd have thought that he didn't have any such intention. How about > you? > > In any case, as Section 2(2) of the Theft Act says: > > "(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be > dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property" > > so your criterion is certainly not decisive. > > Were it not so, any shoplifter on the odd occasion he's caught with goods up > his jumper would have a ready-made get-out-of-jail-free that (of course) he's > willing (on that occasion) to pay for them. > > I suggest it doesn't work like that, nor should it. > >> Anyone who buys anything whether in cash or on credit is "depriving >> the owner of it, permanently". >> >> That aspect is totally irrelevant. > > I agree. It's just a fact in this case that is not in dispute. > >> All that matters is whether there is any intention to pay for it. >> Either immediately; or at some point in the future > > It's not his choice when he pays. You can't just walk out of a shop with some > goods and say bye, I'll pay you in ten years time. > > If you want the goods now, you pay for them now or you make an agreement for > future payment, neither of which applies in the case we're considering. If > you do neither, it's theft. > >> And just to remind you, you stated it as a *fact*, just as in the >> case of the anonymous person cited by Jeff Gaines as quoted above, >> that Roland had *no intention of paying for any gas*. >> >> Which of course, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, >> is grossly defamatory > > Well, it could be, but only if someone had said exactly that, which no-one > has, and certainly not me. > >> So that unless you can provide some sort of explanation as to >> why you believe Roland didn't intend to pay for that gas, > > I have referred before to the circumstances as we know them that might > reasonably lead to that conclusion. He appropriated and used the gas without > payment at the time or any agreement for non-payment or deferred payment. He > made some effort initially to be billed, but those efforts ceased when it got > difficult. He nevertheless continued to use the gas, despite there being no > resolution, for a considerable period thereafter. The likelihood, in my > opinion, is that he would have continued in that vein indefinitely. And, as > far as we know, he never did pay for it. > > How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the gas > without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at what stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to yourself. Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the security guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, you'd then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With your family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus stove cooking their dinner. bb * unlike your average shoplifter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nahgr7F70hvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69935 |
On 30/06/2026 10:29, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the gas >> without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. > > He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and > asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either > terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill > > If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at what > stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas > stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to > yourself. > > Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th > floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the security > guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, you'd > then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With your > family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus > stove cooking their dinner. What's the answer to my question then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 10:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11203k9$101e2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69936 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nahgr7F70hvU2@mid.individual.net... > On 30/06/2026 10:29, billy bookcase wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > >>> How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the gas >>> without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. >> >> He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and >> asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either >> terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill >> >> If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at what >> stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas >> stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to >> yourself. >> >> Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th >> floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the security >> guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, you'd >> then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With your >> family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus >> stove cooking their dinner. > > What's the answer to my question then? Up until such time as the gas central heating boiler and cooker were no longer serviceable Because those appliances were only ever installed in the first place, in the reasonable expectation that gas would be supplied and paid for in the normal manner. As evidenced by the presence of the meter. Thus having invested their money in the boiler and the cooker, it is not reasonable to expect the OP to suffer the financial loss resulting from having to replace those appliances; solely as a result of somebody else's incompetence. When they have taken all reasonable steps to remedy the situation. bb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 11:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nahlnrF70hvU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69938 |
On 30/06/2026 10:52, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:nahgr7F70hvU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 30/06/2026 10:29, billy bookcase wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> >>>> How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the gas >>>> without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. >>> >>> He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and >>> asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either >>> terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill >>> >>> If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at what >>> stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas >>> stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to >>> yourself. >>> >>> Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th >>> floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the security >>> guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, you'd >>> then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With your >>> family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus >>> stove cooking their dinner. >> >> What's the answer to my question then? > > Up until such time as the gas central heating boiler and cooker were no > longer serviceable So, quite possibly decades then? That would be nice, and very fortuitous. > Because those appliances were only ever installed in the first place, > in the reasonable expectation that gas would be supplied and paid > for in the normal manner. By him. Which he never did. And which he never sorted out, perhaps because, when faced with some difficulties, he just didn't have any great incentive to change what appeared to be a beneficial situation for him. I raised the question earlier of what he (anyone) would have done had the boot been on the other foot and the gas supply suddenly terminated with his family 'back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus stove cooking their dinner'. If the gas supply company in those circumstances similarly said sorry, mate, we have no record of your property on our register so it's not our responsibility, I suggest he would have gone back post-haste to the developers (which the gas company may have suggested anyway) and queried in fairly robust terms what on earth was going on. That's what he should have done in the case we're considering but didn't. He should not have continued with long-term usage of something he was not paying for while taking no further action. If he didn't know what steps to take, he should have sought advice. It was his responsibility to sort out. > As evidenced by the presence of the meter. > > Thus having invested their money in the boiler and the cooker, it is > not reasonable to expect the OP to suffer the financial loss > resulting from having to replace those appliances; solely as a result of > somebody else's incompetence. When they have taken all reasonable > steps to remedy the situation. What are all reasonable steps is debatable of course. But he is anyway not entitled just to take something without payment, especially over an extended period. There is nothing in this world that cannot possibly be resolved, and this is something that had to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1120d72$13116$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69941 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nahlnrF70hvU4@mid.individual.net... > On 30/06/2026 10:52, billy bookcase wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:nahgr7F70hvU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 30/06/2026 10:29, billy bookcase wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> >>>>> How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the >>>>> gas >>>>> without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. >>>> >>>> He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and >>>> asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either >>>> terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill >>>> >>>> If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at >>>> what >>>> stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas >>>> stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to >>>> yourself. >>>> >>>> Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th >>>> floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the >>>> security >>>> guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, >>>> you'd >>>> then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With >>>> your >>>> family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus >>>> stove cooking their dinner. >>> >>> What's the answer to my question then? >> >> Up until such time as the gas central heating boiler and cooker were no >> longer serviceable > > So, quite possibly decades then? Indeed. But there's more. Because once the appliances were no longer serviceable, given the problems he was having with the gas supplier, he would presumably want to switch to either electric or oil. So not only would he be faced with the expense of installing different systems along with possible re-modelling of his house, but he would be denied the possibility of choosing the cheapest and most efficient method of warming his house and cooking (as of 20 yrs ago) in the future. This could be called the total replacement cost or TRC. Now obviously this will be highest at the start as it would include scrapping newly installed appliances and systems. In the face of the ever present possibility that at some stage the gas supplier will do as asked; and send him a bill. So that after say two years the TRC would be about Ł10,000 He's bitten the bullet, scrapped his central heating and cooker and installed electric instead. While the amount of gas used might be say, Ł300 Only quite possibly for a gas bill to finally pop through the letterbox. Including a leaflet extolling cheap tariffs. If you were capable of understanding any of this Norman, you could even draw yourself a little graph; showing the falling TRC and Roland's accumulating gas bill as they change over the years. And calculate for yourself when would be the optimum time to switch; given the ever present possibility that a gas bill might pop through the door at any point. bb customary irrelevant material snipped
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 14:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nahubqF70hvU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69945 |
On 30/06/2026 13:35, billy bookcase wrote: > "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:nahlnrF70hvU4@mid.individual.net... >> On 30/06/2026 10:52, billy bookcase wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> news:nahgr7F70hvU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 30/06/2026 10:29, billy bookcase wrote: >>>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>> How long do you consider it reasonable and honest to continue to use the >>>>>> gas >>>>>> without paying for it? I've asked before but answer came there none. >>>>> >>>>> He repeatedly informed the gas company that he was getting free gas* and >>>>> asked them to send him a bill. In the full expectation of their either >>>>> terminating his supply or eventually sending him a bill >>>>> >>>>> If you Norman "Mr Perfect" Wells found yourself in the same position, at >>>>> what >>>>> stage would you remove and scrap your gas central heating boiler and gas >>>>> stove, and replace them with oil or electric equivalents ? At great cost to >>>>> yourself. >>>>> >>>>> Or possibly you'd march off to the Gas Supplier's HQ, situated on the 18th >>>>> floor of a 30 floor office block somewhere, and fail to get past the >>>>> security >>>>> guards in the foyer. Having then been eventually removed by the police, >>>>> you'd >>>>> then sit outside for months on end, in the rain with your placard. With >>>>> your >>>>> family back at home, freezing in their overcoats sat huddled round a primus >>>>> stove cooking their dinner. >>>> >>>> What's the answer to my question then? >>> >>> Up until such time as the gas central heating boiler and cooker were no >>> longer serviceable >> >> So, quite possibly decades then? > > Indeed. But there's more. > > Because once the appliances were no longer serviceable, given the > problems he was having with the gas supplier, he would presumably want > to switch to either electric or oil. No he wouldn't! He was having no problems at all with his supplier. He was getting his gas for free. If an appliance went tits up, he'd simply replace it with another gas appliance to continue that fortuitous situation. There's absolutely no need to convert to electricity or oil. > So not only would he be faced with > the expense of installing different systems along with possible > re-modelling of his house, but he would be denied the possibility > of choosing the cheapest and most efficient method of warming > his house and cooking (as of 20 yrs ago) in the future. > > This could be called the total replacement cost or TRC. > > Now obviously this will be highest at the start as it would include > scrapping newly installed appliances and systems. In the face > of the ever present possibility that at some stage the gas > supplier will do as asked; and send him a bill. Well, that's an ongoing problem totally unrelated to replacement of any item. It could happen at any time at all, as indeed could a court summons for theft. Catching up with you is a quite likely consequence of taking anything without paying. > So that after say two years the TRC would be about Ł10,000 > He's bitten the bullet, scrapped his central heating and cooker > and installed electric instead. While the amount of gas used > might be say, Ł300 Not at current prices, which are about £800 a year on average. > Only quite possibly for a gas bill to finally pop through > the letterbox. Including a leaflet extolling cheap tariffs. > > If you were capable of understanding any of this Norman, you > could even draw yourself a little graph; showing the falling TRC > and Roland's accumulating gas bill as they change over the > years. And calculate for yourself when would be the optimum > time to switch; given the ever present possibility that a > gas bill might pop through the door at any point. Tell me again why he would choose to switch at all. That's what I'm not getting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1120hcr$14b3i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69946 |
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:nahubqF70hvU6@mid.individual.net... > On 30/06/2026 13:35, billy bookcase wrote: >> Now obviously this will be highest at the start as it would include >> scrapping newly installed appliances and systems. In the face >> of the ever present possibility that at some stage the gas >> supplier will do as asked; and send him a bill. > > Well, that's an ongoing problem totally unrelated to replacement of any item. > It could happen at any time at all, Indeed. That's what "an ever present possibilty" actually means. So well done ! That's progress of a sorts, I suppose. > as indeed could a court summons for theft. But not before sending him the bill he repeatedly asked for. So that's one step forwards and two steps back. bb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 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