On 30 Aug 2008 08:00:28 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

<snip>

>judith  is all you say and a lying troll to 
>boot.
>
>regards,   Ian SMith


As I have said before - show where I have lied and I look the fool -
accuse me of lying but you can't quote where - and you look a fool.

(PS did you ever find where the DfT endorsed Cyclecraft?)


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, judith  wrote:
> 
>  (PS did you ever find where the DfT endorsed Cyclecraft?)

Sometimes I have the very slightest niggling thought that it would be 
useful to know what on earth you are blethering about.  

What idiot nonsense crusade are you on about now?  At a guess, I'd say 
that you're trying to make me argue about something I've never said.  
Quite why, I do not know.



-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 30 Aug 2008 16:01:30 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, judith  wrote:
>> 
>>  (PS did you ever find where the DfT endorsed Cyclecraft?)
>
>Sometimes I have the very slightest niggling thought that it would be 
>useful to know what on earth you are blethering about.  

I was pointing out that are a liar when you accuse me of being one.

As I said - show where I lied and I look silly - say that I am but be
unable to prove it - and then you look silly


I thought that you were one of the number who wrongly said that DfT
endorsed Cyclecraft - didn't you?


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:40:13 +0100, judith  wrote:
>  On 30 Aug 2008 16:01:30 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, judith  wrote:
> >> 
> >>  (PS did you ever find where the DfT endorsed Cyclecraft?)
> >
> >Sometimes I have the very slightest niggling thought that it would be 
> >useful to know what on earth you are blethering about.  
> 
>  I thought that you were one of the number who wrongly said that DfT
>  endorsed Cyclecraft - didn't you?

Not so far as I am aware, but I'm sure you wouldn't make baseless 
accusations, so I must have done, because we've all long ago worked 
out that everything judith says must be right, even when it's 
patently completely wrong.

Anyway, back in teh box for you now - I've established all I needed 
to know.

-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 30 Aug 2008 18:42:10 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:40:13 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>  On 30 Aug 2008 16:01:30 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, judith  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>  (PS did you ever find where the DfT endorsed Cyclecraft?)
>> >
>> >Sometimes I have the very slightest niggling thought that it would be 
>> >useful to know what on earth you are blethering about.  
>> 
>>  I thought that you were one of the number who wrongly said that DfT
>>  endorsed Cyclecraft - didn't you?
>
>Not so far as I am aware, but I'm sure you wouldn't make baseless 
>accusations, so I must have done, because we've all long ago worked 
>out that everything judith says must be right, even when it's 
>patently completely wrong.
>
>Anyway, back in teh box for you now - I've established all I needed 
>to know.

Lack of accuracy yet again - I didn't say that you "did" - I said "I
thought you did"


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

>On 30 Aug, 20:57, judith  wrote:
>
>> Lack of accuracy yet again - I didn't say that you "did" - I said "I
>> thought you did"
>
>http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Article678.html
>http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/403150.html


Ah - I see now why your ability to understand what is posted by people
leaves a bit to be desired.

Now this is not difficult:

Grammatically:
 "I think I said you were a fuckwit" - is quite different from
"I said you are a fuckwit" - which in turn is different from 


You are a fuckwit.


Is that clearer.

--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)