On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:34:29 +0100, Sean 
wrote:

>In article , diablos_r0j0s@yahoo.com 
>says...
>> There's one person ended up looking like a dick in this thread lad and that 
>> is you, get off your high horse and shut the fuck up.
>> 
>> The original poster inferred the manager was getting arsey claiming he could 
>> take the goods back, she said "IF he touched you" it doesn't take a genius 
>> to work out what was meant, "If he forcibly tried to take the goods back" 
>> was the way I interpreted what she said and I'd hazard at guess at most sane 
>> people coming to the same conclusion. 
>> 
>Oh hoo-fucking-ray for you. The point is the manager might have got 
>arsey but there was never a suggestion of what Beck said & therefore no 
>point in mentioning what you say is obvious.

i think in saying he could take the stuff back, there was very much an
implication that he would have had to touch my chimp in some way, that
was all beck said.

i do think youve gone off on a good long rant about absolutely fuck
all, frankly.
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

In article , 
chris@asifimtellingyoulot.com says...
> >> 
> >Oh hoo-fucking-ray for you. The point is the manager might have got 
> >arsey but there was never a suggestion of what Beck said & therefore no 
> >point in mentioning what you say is obvious.
> 
> i think in saying he could take the stuff back, there was very much an
> implication that he would have had to touch my chimp in some way, that
> was all beck said.

All subjection & hear say. Implying something isn't against the law. 
Like I said was no need to state the bleeding obvious.

> i do think youve gone off on a good long rant about absolutely fuck
> all, frankly.
> 

So sue me... or is this not an un-moderated newsgroup?