On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 00:52:05 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>
>> What you have given is your opinion of what Matthew has done, with added
>> ad hominems, particularly in regard to his 'attempting to look as if he
>> wasn't one of the gang of four'.
>
>He's made a feeble attempt to put some distance between himself and the
>rest, however the nomination record showed that the gang of four were
>each part of a mutual admiration society and they timed their
>nominations to take place at the last possible moment.
>
>How many times does this have to be repeated?

However many times you repeat it, your presentation of intemperate
opinion as fact is still apparent.  For example, the use of the phrase
'gang of four' which makes a political implication due to its
historical use.

>> Actually, before I go any further, could you explain what you think is
>> 'gangy' about the 'gang of four', presuming you are referring to all
>> of those who are using the chiark email address?  What do you believe
>> their intent to be?  I'm presuming you think that their intent is
>> sinister.  
>
>Don't play thick. Or to use the term you like using, don't be
>disingenuous.

No answer then?

>> Personally, I think that Matthew would be an excellent committee
>> member.
>
>You're confusing your opinion with fact.

Er.  Can you not read the 'I think' at the beginning of the sentence
of mine which you quoted?

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:44:57 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>> However many times you repeat it, your presentation of intemperate
>> opinion as fact is still apparent.  For example, the use of the phrase
>> 'gang of four' which makes a political implication due to its
>> historical use.
>
><sigh> The process was orchestrated in a chiark local group, that has
>been admitted. The nominations were an obvious circle jerk. The
>nominations were timed to take place at the last possible minute.
>
>There are four people, they have acted as a gang.

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, what did you think you were doing in the post dated 18th of
September in uk.misc which referred to 'lycra loons' and
'uk.rec.physcolists' or similar?

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:09:32 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>> Now, what did you think you were doing in the post dated 18th of
>> September in uk.misc which referred to 'lycra loons' and
>> 'uk.rec.physcolists' or similar?
>
>I refer the honourable member to the replies already given.

And there we have it.  He's going to continue to dodge the question.