On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:15:11 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:08:57 <20090811140857.5b950774@bluemoon> 
>uk.net.news.config Rob Morley 
>
>>Looks like you need to change your filtering strategy then.  I've not
>>seen any of those.
>
>You're being ironic?


You're being moronic.  (No question mark needed)



-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:48:55 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:27:51  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:15:11 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:08:57 <20090811140857.5b950774@bluemoon>
>>>uk.net.news.config Rob Morley 
>>>
>>>>Looks like you need to change your filtering strategy then.  I've not
>>>>seen any of those.
>>>
>>>You're being ironic?
>>
>>
>>You're being moronic.  (No question mark needed)
>
>Show us your nuts, jms.
>

What an odd thing to say.


Why are you interested in my body?

Are you a pervert as well as a fuckwit?



-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:01:24 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:32:36  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>Wm:
>>>Show us your nuts, jms.
>>>
>>
>>What an odd thing to say.
>
>Not really if you think about the history.
>
>>Why are you interested in my body?
>
>I like to know who I am talking to.


So you admit that you are interested in my body - you really are a
pervert.


>>Are you a pervert as well as a fuckwit?
>
>I don't do unusual things with biscuits or helicopters.
>
>Please, remember you are in unnc.


so what? 

explain please.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:33:44 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:14:07  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>So you admit
>
>I made no admission

Wrong again:

I say "Why are you interested in my body?"

You reply : "I like to know who I am talking to."

ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.



-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

"Wm..."  considered Wed, 12 Aug
2009 17:01:24 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:32:36  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>Wm:
>>>Show us your nuts, jms.
>>>
>>
>>What an odd thing to say.
>
>Not really if you think about the history.
>
Indeed, it's been showing it's nuts ever since it arrived.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:30:34 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:01:10  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:33:44 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:14:07 
>>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>>
>>>>So you admit
>>>
>>>I made no admission
>>
>>Wrong again:
>>
>>I say "Why are you interested in my body?"
>>
>>You reply : "I like to know who I am talking to."
>>
>>ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.
>
>This is getting a bit weird for me.  People inhabit bodies.  I don't see 
>the perversion.
>
>Can someone help, please?

I asked why you were interested in my body  - most people would have
immediately said that they were not.  Did you? no.

When you said "Show us your nuts, jms."  - there was a clear
indication that you were interested in parts of my body.

When you added : "I say a man wearing girls pants." - it became
obvious that you were a pervert.

Are you imagining the "nuts" in the "girl's pants" now?

it became quite obvious that you are indeed a pervert.

Could you seek advice I wonder?


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

"Wm..."  writes:

<snip>

Surely this is enough troll-feeding?!?

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:45:12 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>"Wm..."  considered Wed, 12 Aug
>2009 17:01:24 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:32:36  
>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>Wm:
>>>>Show us your nuts, jms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What an odd thing to say.
>>
>>Not really if you think about the history.
>>
>Indeed, it's been showing it's nuts ever since it arrived.


Hello, hello, hello - it's (W) Anchor Lee.

Have you found that reference for you claim that  8 pedestrians are
killed every day when they trip up?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:57:47 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>


>She seems to have huge tits. They constantly bounce on her keyboard,
>striking keys randomly.


Excellent - very mature.

Credibility - nil.

You just lost it there sunshine - well done.

"Wm..."  considered Wed, 12 Aug
2009 21:30:34 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:01:10  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:33:44 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:14:07 
>>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>>
>>>>So you admit
>>>
>>>I made no admission
>>
>>Wrong again:
>>
>>I say "Why are you interested in my body?"
>>
>>You reply : "I like to know who I am talking to."
>>
>>ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.
>
>This is getting a bit weird for me.  People inhabit bodies.  I don't see 
>the perversion.
>
>Can someone help, please?

Help's been offered many times, but it seems to be impervious to all
known help.

jms wrote:

> ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.
> 

Seeing as you seem to be rather fond of calling others 'perverts', it 
would be nice to find what this labelling is based on.

Explain how that makes someone a 'pervert'.
Being interested in other people's bodies is how (unless you are really, 
really thick) humans tend to begin the procreation process.

Even if it is not for the continuation of the human race but for  'fun 
or profit' and of the same gender variety it; still no perversion.
Unless you belive your own body is despicable and that no-one should 
view it without a government warning.


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Peter J Ross wrote:

> 
> She seems to have huge tits. They constantly bounce on her keyboard,
> striking keys randomly.
> 

I have always assumed that it is not female and if it does have tits 
they are man-boobs caused by a lack of exercise and eating pizza and Big 
Macs while trying to get as many posts out as possible.


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

jms wrote:

> 
> Are you imagining the "nuts" in the "girl's pants" now?
> 


What sort of pants are they?
Do they have lace trimming and a 'Y' front?
Are they washed?
If there are nuts* inside have they been washed?
Can you tell us when you will put them on E-bay for us all to bid on?


*or nuxx
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

In news:slrnh86lcr.fct.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org,
Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> The Today Programme: Yes, No, Maybe, or You Must Be Fucking Joking?

"If you really knew everything about me, you would surely despise me. I 
personally may not be quite as bad as Barker, Owen and Connelly, but I am 
quite bad enough to deserve your disgust."

Ann Atkins, Thought For The Day, 12-AUG-2009.

Srsly.

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Kill, kill, kill, stab, murder and dispatch.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:53:37 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

<snip>


>>I asked why you were interested in my body  - most people would have
>>immediately said that they were not.  Did you? no.
>
>I see no perversion, yet.


Excellent - another admission - "yet"  - when did it actually dawn on
you then?



>>When you added : "I say a man wearing girls pants." - it became
>>obvious that you were a pervert.
>
>Why?


Anyone who imagines a man wearing girls pants just like that - is
obviously a pervert. 



>>Are you imagining the "nuts" in the "girl's pants" now?
>
>Nope.

When do you do it?  Lying in bed?

>>it became quite obvious that you are indeed a pervert.
>>
>>Could you seek advice I wonder?
>
>You are the person seeking perversion not me, dear. 

Me? seeking perversion? 

In your dreams.  (Probably literally)

> I know where to get advice, you don't.

I see - if you know where to get advice, you must have investigated it
already.

I suggest that you go and get it (soon).

 -- 
DfT Figures 2007
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 533    Pedestrians 384
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3739    Pedestrians : 1795
Please draw your own conclusion.

On 12 Aug 2009 23:16:11 +0100, Matthew Vernon 
wrote:

>"Wm..."  writes:
>
><snip>
>
>Surely this is enough troll-feeding?!?
>
>Matthew


Hello Matthew - where have you come from - just in to validate your
vote?

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:54 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> 
>> Are you imagining the "nuts" in the "girl's pants" now?
>> 
>
>
>What sort of pants are they?
>Do they have lace trimming and a 'Y' front?
>Are they washed?
>If there are nuts* inside have they been washed?
>Can you tell us when you will put them on E-bay for us all to bid on?
>
>
>*or n

ask Wm..the fuckwit - it is in his imagination.

Good to see that it caught  your interest though - any particular
reason?




--     

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
 wrote:

>Response to Wm...:
>
>> >ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.  
>> 
>> This is getting a bit weird for me.  People inhabit bodies.  I don't
>> see the perversion.
>
>
>IANAP, and the psychopathology of judith is in any case unknowable [and
>I'd be quite happy to keep it that way]; but it does seem sad, and
>revealing, for jms to equate interest in its body with perversion.


You are quite right.

The fact that Wm..the fuckwit insisted on talking about bodies, girls
pants, nuts, penises and imagining those things in different contexts
- and is probably throwing one off as he types -  is perfectly normal
in a cycling  newsgroup and gives no indication of perversion at all.

I guess anyone who thought that was all OK would be quite normal as
well?

--     

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:16:59 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.
>> 
>
>Seeing as you seem to be rather fond of calling others 'perverts', it 
>would be nice to find what this labelling is based on.
>
>Explain how that makes someone a 'pervert'.
>Being interested in other people's bodies is how (unless you are really, 
>really thick) humans tend to begin the procreation process.
>
>Even if it is not for the continuation of the human race but for  'fun 
>or profit' and of the same gender variety it; still no perversion.
>Unless you belive your own body is despicable and that no-one should 
>view it without a government warning.


Being interested in another's body is not being a pervert.

Insisting on discussing penises, girls pants, showing interest in
bodies of others, nuts and any other sexual  matter in a cycling
newsgroup to me indicates he is probably getting some sort of sexual
gratification from talking about such things.

Therefore he is a pervert.

(It is quite interesting seeing which people have been drawn in to
this topic.  I wonder what the attraction is for them?)

--     

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:51:55 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:19:21 +0100, jms
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:57:47 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>She seems to have huge tits. They constantly bounce on her keyboard,
>>>striking keys randomly.
>>
>> Excellent - very mature.
>>
>> Credibility - nil.
>>
>> You just lost it there sunshine - well done.
>
>You seem to think that your opinions are more interesting than your
>tits, but you're wrong.
>
>
>Are you a lesbian, and if so do you have a stereotypical crew-cut
>hair-style?
>
>To the nearest dozen, how many lego bricks do you own?
>
>Name at least five ways in which Stephen Fry's chin could be enhanced.
>
>The Today Programme: Yes, No, Maybe, or You Must Be Fucking Joking?
>
>Compared with a nice pair of 36C tits, are yours better or worse? (Use
>both sides of the photocopier.)
>
>
>The proposed moderators of URCM have already provided satisfactory
>answers to all these questions. Now it's your turn, jms.


Excellent.

Are you in the sixth form yet?

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:32 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> 
>> She seems to have huge tits. They constantly bounce on her keyboard,
>> striking keys randomly.
>> 
>
>I have always assumed that it is not female and if it does have tits 
>they are man-boobs caused by a lack of exercise and eating pizza and Big 
>Macs while trying to get as many posts out as possible.


Fascinating posts.

jms wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:54 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> 
>> jms wrote:
>>
>>> Are you imagining the "nuts" in the "girl's pants" now?
>>>
>>
>> What sort of pants are they?
>> Do they have lace trimming and a 'Y' front?
>> Are they washed?
>> If there are nuts* inside have they been washed?
>> Can you tell us when you will put them on E-bay for us all to bid on?
>>
>>
>> *or n
> 
> ask Wm..the fuckwit - it is in his imagination.
> 
> Good to see that it caught  your interest though - any particular
> reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 

Just waiting for the link to e-bay


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

jms wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:16:59 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> 
>> jms wrote:
>>
>>> ie - you admit to being interested in my body : you are a pervert.
>>>
>> Seeing as you seem to be rather fond of calling others 'perverts', it 
>> would be nice to find what this labelling is based on.
>>
>> Explain how that makes someone a 'pervert'.
>> Being interested in other people's bodies is how (unless you are really, 
>> really thick) humans tend to begin the procreation process.
>>
>> Even if it is not for the continuation of the human race but for  'fun 
>> or profit' and of the same gender variety it; still no perversion.
>> Unless you belive your own body is despicable and that no-one should 
>> view it without a government warning.
> 
> 
> Being interested in another's body is not being a pervert.
> 
> Insisting on discussing penises, girls pants, showing interest in
> bodies of others, nuts and any other sexual  matter in a cycling
> newsgroup to me indicates he is probably getting some sort of sexual
> gratification from talking about such things.
> 
> Therefore he is a pervert.
> 
> (It is quite interesting seeing which people have been drawn in to
> this topic.  I wonder what the attraction is for them?)
> 


'pervert' in the sexual sense, is dependant on the sexual mores and 
customs of a particular society. As there has been only one claim for 
perversion I can only assume that you live in a society that differs 
from others here, somewhere rather special.

Another meaning of 'pervert' is well known to you as it is your 
customary practice to pervert threads to your own use.
In which case it is yourself that is the pervert.
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

In MsgID on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:01:24 +0100,
in uk.net.news.config, 'Wm...' wrote:

>>Why are you interested in my body?
>
>I like to know who I am talking to.
-               ^^^ what  ?

Dave J.