"Those In Peril" - the *true* story, despite what the author claims:

Mr. Follett wrote:

/// BEGIN FOLLETT'S POST:

"It darn near didn't get written. That it was based on a true event was
its great selling feature. Trouble is I couldn't find any record that
Donitz had appealed to Churchill on humanitarian grounds to leave the
U-boats alone. The only reference I was able to track down at the time
(around 1991) was a mention in Karl Donitz's autobiography. That wasn't
enough for the publisher. Naval Historical Branch, Public records,
Churchill's papers -- all drew a blank. Here was a great story, likely
to be dead in the water because I couldn't back it up.

A generous but controversial German-speaking historian came to the
rescue. He pointed out that in the 1950s loyal weeders, private and
public, had gone through all records and submitted to Churchill lists of
those records that could show him in an unfavourable light. Churchill
sanctioned the removal of many records -- not all because his sense of
humour wouldn't permit it (such as the Milton Byran flames about his
supposed alcohol excesses!). Nevertheless, many vital papers had
disappeared. My historian colleague suggested approaching the
Bundesarchiv in Freiberg and even wrote a letter to them because he was
on good terms with them. Freiberg turned up trumps: a motherlode of
material including copies of all signals between OKM and the RN via the
Red Cross that confirmed Donitz's claim.

After several months of hard graft and running up huge London Library
freight charges, the book was green lighted. That's why I counsel other
researchers with great caution when dealing with Churchill."

///END OF FOLLETT'S POST

Then begins the "interesting" part. (But only if you are interested in RN 
affairs.)

Some bystanders wrote: Can you please tell us, Mr. Follett, just which 
incident in the U-boat war you are talking about? I thought it sounded very 
much like the "Laconia" incident when I read your book?

Mr. Follett replied: It has nothing to do with the "Laconia" incident.

A poster asked: Well, just which incident are you referring to?

Mr. Follett replied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...126.2C_a_Nightmare.2C_and_HMS_Devonshire

There was not a single claim from Mr. Follett that his book *did* concern 
the "Laconia" disaster - he in fact - to repeat - pointed out that none of 
it had to do with the "Laconia". For him to claim so different now, apart 
from the fact that all of the incidents he dramatically brings to life in 
his book *did* happen on the "Atlantis", show just how desperate he is to 
try and silence any queries. He should have thought of that before posting 
his lies.

"Jim Way"  wrote in message 
news:Y7D2j.3043$5R1.1549@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> "Those In Peril" - the *true* story, despite what the author claims:
>
> Mr. Follett wrote:
>
> /// BEGIN FOLLETT'S POST:
>
> "It darn near didn't get written. That it was based on a true event was
> its great selling feature. Trouble is I couldn't find any record that
> Donitz had appealed to Churchill on humanitarian grounds to leave the
> U-boats alone. The only reference I was able to track down at the time
> (around 1991) was a mention in Karl Donitz's autobiography. That wasn't
> enough for the publisher. Naval Historical Branch, Public records,
> Churchill's papers -- all drew a blank. Here was a great story, likely
> to be dead in the water because I couldn't back it up.
>
> A generous but controversial German-speaking historian came to the
> rescue. He pointed out that in the 1950s loyal weeders, private and
> public, had gone through all records and submitted to Churchill lists of
> those records that could show him in an unfavourable light. Churchill
> sanctioned the removal of many records -- not all because his sense of
> humour wouldn't permit it (such as the Milton Byran flames about his
> supposed alcohol excesses!). Nevertheless, many vital papers had
> disappeared. My historian colleague suggested approaching the
> Bundesarchiv in Freiberg and even wrote a letter to them because he was
> on good terms with them. Freiberg turned up trumps: a motherlode of
> material including copies of all signals between OKM and the RN via the
> Red Cross that confirmed Donitz's claim.
>
> After several months of hard graft and running up huge London Library
> freight charges, the book was green lighted. That's why I counsel other
> researchers with great caution when dealing with Churchill."
>
> ///END OF FOLLETT'S POST
>
> Then begins the "interesting" part. (But only if you are interested in RN 
> affairs.)
>
> Some bystanders wrote: Can you please tell us, Mr. Follett, just which 
> incident in the U-boat war you are talking about? I thought it sounded 
> very much like the "Laconia" incident when I read your book?
>
> Mr. Follett replied: It has nothing to do with the "Laconia" incident.
>
> A poster asked: Well, just which incident are you referring to?
>
> Mr. Follett replied:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...126.2C_a_Nightmare.2C_and_HMS_Devonshire
>
> There was not a single claim from Mr. Follett that his book *did* concern 
> the "Laconia" disaster - he in fact - to repeat - pointed out that none of 
> it had to do with the "Laconia". For him to claim so different now, apart 
> from the fact that all of the incidents he dramatically brings to life in 
> his book *did* happen on the "Atlantis", show just how desperate he is to 
> try and silence any queries. He should have thought of that before posting 
> his lies.
>
>Does it matte4r the bosh lost.
>If JF says its so then thats good enuff for me
G

"GMK"  wrote in message 
news:zfGdncBNovg1n9baRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
> "Jim Way"  wrote in message 
> news:Y7D2j.3043$5R1.1549@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> "Those In Peril" - the *true* story, despite what the author claims:
>>
>> Mr. Follett wrote:
>>
>> /// BEGIN FOLLETT'S POST:
>>
>> "It darn near didn't get written. That it was based on a true event was
>> its great selling feature. Trouble is I couldn't find any record that
>> Donitz had appealed to Churchill on humanitarian grounds to leave the
>> U-boats alone. The only reference I was able to track down at the time
>> (around 1991) was a mention in Karl Donitz's autobiography. That wasn't
>> enough for the publisher. Naval Historical Branch, Public records,
>> Churchill's papers -- all drew a blank. Here was a great story, likely
>> to be dead in the water because I couldn't back it up.
>>
>> A generous but controversial German-speaking historian came to the
>> rescue. He pointed out that in the 1950s loyal weeders, private and
>> public, had gone through all records and submitted to Churchill lists of
>> those records that could show him in an unfavourable light. Churchill
>> sanctioned the removal of many records -- not all because his sense of
>> humour wouldn't permit it (such as the Milton Byran flames about his
>> supposed alcohol excesses!). Nevertheless, many vital papers had
>> disappeared. My historian colleague suggested approaching the
>> Bundesarchiv in Freiberg and even wrote a letter to them because he was
>> on good terms with them. Freiberg turned up trumps: a motherlode of
>> material including copies of all signals between OKM and the RN via the
>> Red Cross that confirmed Donitz's claim.
>>
>> After several months of hard graft and running up huge London Library
>> freight charges, the book was green lighted. That's why I counsel other
>> researchers with great caution when dealing with Churchill."
>>
>> ///END OF FOLLETT'S POST
>>
>> Then begins the "interesting" part. (But only if you are interested in RN 
>> affairs.)
>>
>> Some bystanders wrote: Can you please tell us, Mr. Follett, just which 
>> incident in the U-boat war you are talking about? I thought it sounded 
>> very much like the "Laconia" incident when I read your book?
>>
>> Mr. Follett replied: It has nothing to do with the "Laconia" incident.
>>
>> A poster asked: Well, just which incident are you referring to?
>>
>> Mr. Follett replied:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...126.2C_a_Nightmare.2C_and_HMS_Devonshire
>>
>> There was not a single claim from Mr. Follett that his book *did* concern 
>> the "Laconia" disaster - he in fact - to repeat - pointed out that none 
>> of it had to do with the "Laconia". For him to claim so different now, 
>> apart from the fact that all of the incidents he dramatically brings to 
>> life in his book *did* happen on the "Atlantis", show just how desperate 
>> he is to try and silence any queries. He should have thought of that 
>> before posting his lies.
>>
>>Does it matte4r the bosh lost.

Did JF want the bosh to lost?

>>If JF says its so then thats good enuff for me
> G

Yup, good for you GMK. Why, it's now just taking the revisionists only a few 
months to change things rather than the year and years - and many of them 
very unnoticed scurrying years like it took your old chum JF.

He is a dangerous man, GMK, but after reading your post I doubt if you will 
care nor understand. Fortunately, he is a rather decrepit man who suffered a 
major stroke not too long ago. Thankfully we will soon probably be shot of 
him. <Amen>

"Jim Way"  wrote in message 
news:4bE2j.93940$392.28734@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>
> "GMK"  wrote in message 
> news:zfGdncBNovg1n9baRVnygAA@bt.com...
>>
>> "Jim Way"  wrote in message 
>> news:Y7D2j.3043$5R1.1549@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>>> "Those In Peril" - the *true* story, despite what the author claims:
>>>
>>> Mr. Follett wrote:
>>>
>>> /// BEGIN FOLLETT'S POST:
>>>
>>> "It darn near didn't get written. That it was based on a true event was
>>> its great selling feature. Trouble is I couldn't find any record that
>>> Donitz had appealed to Churchill on humanitarian grounds to leave the
>>> U-boats alone. The only reference I was able to track down at the time
>>> (around 1991) was a mention in Karl Donitz's autobiography. That wasn't
>>> enough for the publisher. Naval Historical Branch, Public records,
>>> Churchill's papers -- all drew a blank. Here was a great story, likely
>>> to be dead in the water because I couldn't back it up.
>>>
>>> A generous but controversial German-speaking historian came to the
>>> rescue. He pointed out that in the 1950s loyal weeders, private and
>>> public, had gone through all records and submitted to Churchill lists of
>>> those records that could show him in an unfavourable light. Churchill
>>> sanctioned the removal of many records -- not all because his sense of
>>> humour wouldn't permit it (such as the Milton Byran flames about his
>>> supposed alcohol excesses!). Nevertheless, many vital papers had
>>> disappeared. My historian colleague suggested approaching the
>>> Bundesarchiv in Freiberg and even wrote a letter to them because he was
>>> on good terms with them. Freiberg turned up trumps: a motherlode of
>>> material including copies of all signals between OKM and the RN via the
>>> Red Cross that confirmed Donitz's claim.
>>>
>>> After several months of hard graft and running up huge London Library
>>> freight charges, the book was green lighted. That's why I counsel other
>>> researchers with great caution when dealing with Churchill."
>>>
>>> ///END OF FOLLETT'S POST
>>>
>>> Then begins the "interesting" part. (But only if you are interested in 
>>> RN affairs.)
>>>
>>> Some bystanders wrote: Can you please tell us, Mr. Follett, just which 
>>> incident in the U-boat war you are talking about? I thought it sounded 
>>> very much like the "Laconia" incident when I read your book?
>>>
>>> Mr. Follett replied: It has nothing to do with the "Laconia" incident.
>>>
>>> A poster asked: Well, just which incident are you referring to?
>>>
>>> Mr. Follett replied:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...126.2C_a_Nightmare.2C_and_HMS_Devonshire
>>>
>>> There was not a single claim from Mr. Follett that his book *did* 
>>> concern the "Laconia" disaster - he in fact - to repeat - pointed out 
>>> that none of it had to do with the "Laconia". For him to claim so 
>>> different now, apart from the fact that all of the incidents he 
>>> dramatically brings to life in his book *did* happen on the "Atlantis", 
>>> show just how desperate he is to try and silence any queries. He should 
>>> have thought of that before posting his lies.
>>>
>>>Does it matte4r the bosh lost.
>
> Did JF want the bosh to lost?
>
>>>If JF says its so then thats good enuff for me
>> G
>
> Yup, good for you GMK. Why, it's now just taking the revisionists only a 
> few months to change things rather than the year and years - and many of 
> them very unnoticed scurrying years like it took your old chum JF.
>
> He is a dangerous man, GMK, but after reading your post I doubt if you 
> will care nor understand. Fortunately, he is a rather decrepit man who 
> suffered a major stroke not too long ago. Thankfully we will soon probably 
> be shot of him. <Amen>
>
>The word Jihad springs to mind here mate.If JF had done so wrong then 
>surely the place to settle it would have been the civil courts?As ther 
>seems to be no actions pending I can only
>conclude there is no case to answer which sways me to my original 
>point,Jihad
G
>

On Nov 27, 4:38 am, "GMK"  wrote:
> "Jim Way"  wrote in message
>
> news:4bE2j.93940$392.28734@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>
>
>
> > "GMK"  wrote in message
> >news:zfGdncBNovg1n9baRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
> >> "Jim Way"  wrote in message
> >>news:Y7D2j.3043$5R1.1549@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> >>> "Those In Peril" - the *true* story, despite what the author claims:
>
> >>> Mr. Follett wrote:
>
> >>> /// BEGIN FOLLETT'S POST:
>
> >>> "It darn near didn't get written. That it was based on a true event was
> >>> its great selling feature. Trouble is I couldn't find any record that
> >>> Donitz had appealed to Churchill on humanitarian grounds to leave the
> >>> U-boats alone. The only reference I was able to track down at the time
> >>> (around 1991) was a mention in Karl Donitz's autobiography. That wasn't
> >>> enough for the publisher. Naval Historical Branch, Public records,
> >>> Churchill's papers -- all drew a blank. Here was a great story, likely
> >>> to be dead in the water because I couldn't back it up.
>
> >>> A generous but controversial German-speaking historian came to the
> >>> rescue. He pointed out that in the 1950s loyal weeders, private and
> >>> public, had gone through all records and submitted to Churchill lists of
> >>> those records that could show him in an unfavourable light. Churchill
> >>> sanctioned the removal of many records -- not all because his sense of
> >>> humour wouldn't permit it (such as the Milton Byran flames about his
> >>> supposed alcohol excesses!). Nevertheless, many vital papers had
> >>> disappeared. My historian colleague suggested approaching the
> >>> Bundesarchiv in Freiberg and even wrote a letter to them because he was
> >>> on good terms with them. Freiberg turned up trumps: a motherlode of
> >>> material including copies of all signals between OKM and the RN via the
> >>> Red Cross that confirmed Donitz's claim.
>
> >>> After several months of hard graft and running up huge London Library
> >>> freight charges, the book was green lighted. That's why I counsel other
> >>> researchers with great caution when dealing with Churchill."
>
> >>> ///END OF FOLLETT'S POST
>
> >>> Then begins the "interesting" part. (But only if you are interested in
> >>> RN affairs.)
>
> >>> Some bystanders wrote: Can you please tell us, Mr. Follett, just which
> >>> incident in the U-boat war you are talking about? I thought it sounded
> >>> very much like the "Laconia" incident when I read your book?
>
> >>> Mr. Follett replied: It has nothing to do with the "Laconia" incident.
>
> >>> A poster asked: Well, just which incident are you referring to?
>
> >>> Mr. Follett replied:
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...
>
> >>> There was not a single claim from Mr. Follett that his book *did*
> >>> concern the "Laconia" disaster - he in fact - to repeat - pointed out
> >>> that none of it had to do with the "Laconia". For him to claim so
> >>> different now, apart from the fact that all of the incidents he
> >>> dramatically brings to life in his book *did* happen on the "Atlantis",
> >>> show just how desperate he is to try and silence any queries. He should
> >>> have thought of that before posting his lies.
>
> >>>Does it matte4r the bosh lost.
>
> > Did JF want the bosh to lost?
>
> >>>If JF says its so then thats good enuff for me
> >> G
>
> > Yup, good for you GMK. Why, it's now just taking the revisionists only a
> > few months to change things rather than the year and years - and many of
> > them very unnoticed scurrying years like it took your old chum JF.
>
> > He is a dangerous man, GMK, but after reading your post I doubt if you
> > will care nor understand. Fortunately, he is a rather decrepit man who
> > suffered a major stroke not too long ago. Thankfully we will soon probably
> > be shot of him. <Amen>
>
> >The word Jihad springs to mind here mate.If JF had done so wrong then
> >surely the place to settle it would have been the civil courts?As ther
> >seems to be no actions pending I can only
> >conclude there is no case to answer which sways me to my original
> >point,Jihad
> G

>What is this, "The Old Farts' Club"?

  ... zZz, zZx

>A bored,
>
>Raving

In message , GMK 
 writes

 >>The word Jihad springs to mind here mate. If JF had done so >>wrong 
then surely the place to settle it would have been the >>civil courts? 
As there seems to be no actions pending I can >>only conclude there is 
no case to answer which sways me to my >>original point, Jihad

Your conclusions are correct. When he was going through a particularly 
bad 'red fog' spell and his crazy accusations were frothing thick and 
fast, I was in the middle of negotiations regarding the sale of film 
rights in which the publisher was entitled to a share. Serious money 
involved. It's a complex deal tied into a possible TV drama series of 
thirteen 3- to 4-hour stand-alone filmed episodes with the series 
working title 'Indictment at Nuremberg' planned for production starting 
in 2010. Preliminary budget figures are about USD20M for the entire 
series, each story linked to a movie. My 'The Laconia Affair' and 'Those 
in Peril' is my linked pair.

A contract clause required me to say if I knew of any legal objections 
and to furnish evidence. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek I turned over copies 
of all the anonymous poison pen hate posts from our jihad friend. I 
guessed some lawyers would appreciate a good laugh and I wasn't wrong. 
Our anonymous poison pen posting friend's bluff was called when he was 
invited to submit answers to my publishers relating to a number of 
specific points concerning his allegations. He was given a deadline.

As expected, the deadline passed. Not a peep was heard from our friend 
other than a sheepish admission that it was all a joke. Yeah -- right.

If he wished, he could still submit an affidavit but he is so malleable 
and predictable that we know he won't. After all, it's all a joke, 
innit?

He's malleable because when I mentioned that I'd set a killrule to 
exclude cross-posts, he immediately ceased his habit of cross-posting 
posts he wanted me to see.

Malleable and gullible because a colleague pointed out to me that my 
ISP, Demon, provide their customers with fixed IP numbers. I know 
nothing about these things but I was assured that if my IP number was 
used in a couple of posts from my colleague, then our jihad gentleman 
would scream 'sock'. My colleague was right.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the footprints they leave when 
using IE, just go to

http://dk0fr.de/cmp/index.php

and scroll down to the bottom of the page where a little blue panel will 
reveal a great deal of information about you. The page is provided by 
the Frieberg Amateur Radio Club in Germany. Many of its members work for 
the Bundesarchiv in Frieberg and have provided me with a great deal of 
help over the years. So much for our jihad friend's silly claims about 
my access to 'secret' archives. The truth is always so much more prosaic 
than wild accusations.

Malleable because, such is his blind hatred of me especially when he 
learned I was part Jewish, that he was taken to following me about the 
Usenet, posting to my favourite newsgroups -- this one included. He 
doesn't appear to have any grep software so I have to tip him off where 
to find me. I confess to leading him into all manner of traps because 
he's currently receiving a right royal spanking on alt.usage.english. 
About as robust a group as one could wish to find. 75 per cent of the 
regulars ignore him, the rest give him a right royal roasting. There's 
about six newsgroups to go.

Another malleable feature is one you've already discovered: anyone with 
the temerity to challenge him is subjected to a spew of venomous hate 
posts. See his posts to Dave Pepper on uk.local.surrey. Unbelievable. 
Luckily, like me, Dave has a sense of humour.

In my case, of course, our jihad friend gives full vent to his diatribes 
knowing that I never resort to personal insults.

But it's all a joke, innit?

-- 
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
Power Corp are to make a movie of James Follett's ICE.
http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655

"JF"  wrote in message 
news:HBchuYk+OjUHFw27@marage.demon.co.uk...
> In message , GMK 
>  writes
>
> >>The word Jihad springs to mind here mate. If JF had done so >>wrong
> then surely the place to settle it would have been the >>civil courts? As 
> there seems to be no actions pending I can >>only conclude there is no 
> case to answer which sways me to my >>original point, Jihad
>
> Your conclusions are correct. When he was going through a particularly bad 
> 'red fog' spell and his crazy accusations were frothing thick and fast, I 
> was in the middle of negotiations regarding the sale of film rights in 
> which the publisher was entitled to a share. Serious money involved. It's 
> a complex deal tied into a possible TV drama series of thirteen 3- to 
> 4-hour stand-alone filmed episodes with the series working title 
> 'Indictment at Nuremberg' planned for production starting in 2010. 
> Preliminary budget figures are about USD20M for the entire series, each 
> story linked to a movie. My 'The Laconia Affair' and 'Those in Peril' is 
> my linked pair.

So, Follet, you now claim your book *was* based on the "Laconia" incident. 
Why, during very normal and civil posts concernig the matter, did you post 
this link when another poster (not me) asked you just what your book was 
based on?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis#U-68.2...126.2C_a_Nightmare.2C_and_HMS_DevonshireYou were either lying when you posted that or you are lying now. Either wayyou are a liar.

The spin meister supreme "JF"  wrote in message 
news:HBchuYk+OjUHFw27@marage.demon.co.uk...
> In message , GMK 
>  writes
>
> >>The word Jihad springs to mind here mate. If JF had done so >>wrong
> then surely the place to settle it would have been the >>civil courts? As 
> there seems to be no actions pending I can >>only conclude there is no 
> case to answer which sways me to my >>original point, Jihad
>
> Your conclusions are correct. When he was going through a particularly bad 
> 'red fog' spell and his crazy accusations were frothing thick and fast, I 
> was in the middle of negotiations regarding the sale of film rights in 
> which the publisher was entitled to a share. Serious money involved. It's 
> a complex deal tied into a possible TV drama series of thirteen 3- to 
> 4-hour stand-alone filmed episodes with the series working title 
> 'Indictment at Nuremberg' planned for production starting in 2010. 
> Preliminary budget figures are about USD20M for the entire series, each 
> story linked to a movie. My 'The Laconia Affair' and 'Those in Peril' is 
> my linked pair.
>
> A contract clause required me to say if I knew of any legal objections and 
> to furnish evidence. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek I turned over copies of all 
> the anonymous poison pen hate posts from our jihad friend. I guessed some 
> lawyers would appreciate a good laugh and I wasn't wrong. Our anonymous 
> poison pen posting friend's bluff was called when he was invited to submit 
> answers to my publishers relating to a number of specific points 
> concerning his allegations. He was given a deadline.
>
> As expected, the deadline passed. Not a peep was heard from our friend 
> other than a sheepish admission that it was all a joke. Yeah -- right.
>
> If he wished, he could still submit an affidavit but he is so malleable 
> and predictable that we know he won't. After all, it's all a joke, innit?
>
> He's malleable because when I mentioned that I'd set a killrule to exclude 
> cross-posts, he immediately ceased his habit of cross-posting posts he 
> wanted me to see.
>
> Malleable and gullible because a colleague pointed out to me that my ISP, 
> Demon, provide their customers with fixed IP numbers. I know nothing about 
> these things but I was assured that if my IP number was used in a couple 
> of posts from my colleague, then our jihad gentleman would scream 'sock'. 
> My colleague was right.
>
> Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the footprints they leave when using 
> IE, just go to
>
> http://dk0fr.de/cmp/index.php
>
> and scroll down to the bottom of the page where a little blue panel will 
> reveal a great deal of information about you. The page is provided by the 
> Frieberg Amateur Radio Club in Germany. Many of its members work for the 
> Bundesarchiv in Frieberg and have provided me with a great deal of help 
> over the years. So much for our jihad friend's silly claims about my 
> access to 'secret' archives. The truth is always so much more prosaic than 
> wild accusations.
>
> Malleable because, such is his blind hatred of me especially when he 
> learned I was part Jewish, that he was taken to following me about the 
> Usenet, posting to my favourite newsgroups -- this one included. He 
> doesn't appear to have any grep software so I have to tip him off where to 
> find me. I confess to leading him into all manner of traps because he's 
> currently receiving a right royal spanking on alt.usage.english. About as 
> robust a group as one could wish to find. 75 per cent of the regulars 
> ignore him, the rest give him a right royal roasting. There's about six 
> newsgroups to go.
>
> Another malleable feature is one you've already discovered: anyone with 
> the temerity to challenge him is subjected to a spew of venomous hate 
> posts. See his posts to Dave Pepper on uk.local.surrey. Unbelievable. 
> Luckily, like me, Dave has a sense of humour.
>
> In my case, of course, our jihad friend gives full vent to his diatribes 
> knowing that I never resort to personal insults.
>
> But it's all a joke, innit?
>
> -- 
> James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
> Power Corp are to make a movie of James Follett's ICE.
> http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655
>

[Reposted complete, unexpurgated and unabridged the entire Follett spin on 
events as only his twisted, lying mind can see them. This is done solely to 
circumvent Follett's eventual spin in the future when he changes his mind 
again.]

"Wim Jay"

Mate - You are BORING now, in danger of being thought a sad likkle
inadequate so do me a favour - Shut Up :)

"Tommy"  wrote in message 
news:5Rx4j.1946$jy3.1622@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Wim Jay"
>
> Mate - You are BORING now, in danger of being thought a sad likkle
> inadequate so do me a favour - Shut Up :)
>
>

No. You Shut Up.

"Tommy"  wrote in
news:5Rx4j.1946$jy3.1622@newsfe7-win.ntli.net: 

> 
> "Wim Jay"
> 
> Mate - You are BORING now, in danger of being thought a sad likkle
> inadequate so do me a favour - Shut Up :)
> 
> 
> 

Ever read a Follett post? 
-- 

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e
 
W
o
z

E
r
e

"Wim Jay"  wrote in
news:31y4j.46261$Gp5.7080@fe01.news.easynews.com: 

> 
> "Tommy"  wrote in message 
> news:5Rx4j.1946$jy3.1622@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Wim Jay"
>>
>> Mate - You are BORING now, in danger of being thought a sad likkle
>> inadequate so do me a favour - Shut Up :)
>>
>>
> 
> No. You Shut Up. 
> 
No You Shut Up. 


-- 

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e
 
W
o
z

E
r
e

JF  wrote in
news:HBchuYk+OjUHFw27@marage.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , GMK 
>  writes
> 
> >>The word Jihad springs to mind here mate. If JF had done so >>wrong 
> then surely the place to settle it would have been the >>civil courts?
> As there seems to be no actions pending I can >>only conclude there is
> no case to answer which sways me to my >>original point, Jihad
> 
> Your conclusions are correct. When he was going through a particularly
> bad 'red fog' spell and his crazy accusations were frothing thick and 
> fast, I was in the middle of negotiations regarding the sale of film 
> rights in which the publisher was entitled to a share. Serious money 
> involved. It's a complex deal tied into a possible TV drama series of 
> thirteen 3- to 4-hour stand-alone filmed episodes with the series 
> working title 'Indictment at Nuremberg' planned for production
> starting in 2010. Preliminary budget figures are about USD20M for the
> entire series, each story linked to a movie. My 'The Laconia Affair'
> and 'Those in Peril' is my linked pair.

You'll be dead by 2010.

> 
> A contract clause required me to say if I knew of any legal objections
> and to furnish evidence. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek I turned over copies
> of all the anonymous poison pen hate posts from our jihad friend. I 
> guessed some lawyers would appreciate a good laugh and I wasn't wrong.
> Our anonymous poison pen posting friend's bluff was called when he was
> invited to submit answers to my publishers relating to a number of 
> specific points concerning his allegations. He was given a deadline.
> 
> As expected, the deadline passed. Not a peep was heard from our friend
> other than a sheepish admission that it was all a joke. Yeah -- right.
> 


LARF! You lying bastard.
-- 

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e
 
W
o
z

E
r
e