Tom Sherman should be careful. The Spanish Inquisition is only sleeping, it 
is not dead. Yea, it will come back to life quickly enough if it is summoned 
by Saint Edward the Great.

Tom Sherman spoofs it at his peril. Saint Edward the Great has intimate 
contact with all the members of the Spanish Inquisition including the Grand 
Inquisitor himself. Saint Edward the Great is a Great Saint almost on the 
level of God. To tweak such a Great Saint is to imperil your immortal soul. 
If Tom Sherman were a good Roman Catholic instead of a heretical Danish 
Protestant he would know this. A fool and his soul are soon departed. No one 
knows this better than the Spanish Inquisition. Even Ed Dolan the Great 
fears Saint Edward the Great.

There is nothing more delightful in this world than to slaughter heretics. 
Even though I am an atheist, I believe in the Spanish Inquisition. Long Live 
the Spanish Inquisition!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Tom Sherman should be careful. The Spanish Inquisition is only sleeping, it 
> is not dead. Yea, it will come back to life quickly enough if it is summoned 
> by Saint Edward the Great.
> 
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

> Tom Sherman spoofs it at his peril. Saint Edward the Great has intimate 
> contact with all the members of the Spanish Inquisition including the Grand 
> Inquisitor himself. Saint Edward the Great is a Great Saint almost on the 
> level of God. To tweak such a Great Saint is to imperil your immortal soul. 
> If Tom Sherman were a good Roman Catholic instead of a heretical Danish 
> Protestant he would know this. A fool and his soul are soon departed. No one 
> knows this better than the Spanish Inquisition. Even Ed Dolan the Great 
> fears Saint Edward the Great.
> 
Their three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an 
almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

> There is nothing more delightful in this world than to slaughter heretics. 
> Even though I am an atheist, I believe in the Spanish Inquisition. Long Live 
> the Spanish Inquisition!
> 
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

-- 
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If my posts in general annoy or offend, please kill-file.

In article <gcck9v$5l2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Tom Sherman  wrote:

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > Tom Sherman should be careful. The Spanish Inquisition is only sleeping, it 
> > is not dead. Yea, it will come back to life quickly enough if it is summoned 
> > by Saint Edward the Great.
> > 
> I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

Piggy-backing because ED's message is not available on my server.
The Spanish Inquisition is not sleeping. It has rung down the
curtain and joined the choir invisible. Effective Tuesday, 15 July 1834.

-- 
Michael Press

In article ,
 Michael Press  wrote:

> In article <gcck9v$5l2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>  Tom Sherman  wrote:
> 
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > Tom Sherman should be careful. The Spanish Inquisition is only sleeping, it 
> > > is not dead. Yea, it will come back to life quickly enough if it is summoned 
> > > by Saint Edward the Great.
> > > 
> > I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!
> 
> Piggy-backing because ED's message is not available on my server.
> The Spanish Inquisition is not sleeping. It has rung down the
> curtain and joined the choir invisible. Effective Tuesday, 15 July 1834.

And now replying to my own post: 
The Roman Inquisition was never disbanded, simply renamed. 

"This body was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office 
in 1908 by Pope Saint Pius X. It was
changed to Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 
on December 7, 1965, at the end of the Second Vatican
Council. In 1983, with the new code of Canon law, "Sacred"
was dropped from the names of Vatican Congregations."

-- 
Michael Press

"Michael Press"  wrote in message 
news:rubrum-DCD172.16052406102008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article ,
> Michael Press  wrote:
>
>> In article <gcck9v$5l2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>  Tom Sherman  wrote:
>>
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> > > Tom Sherman should be careful. The Spanish Inquisition is only 
>> > > sleeping, it
>> > > is not dead. Yea, it will come back to life quickly enough if it is 
>> > > summoned
>> > > by Saint Edward the Great.
>> > >
>> > I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!
>>
>> Piggy-backing because ED's message is not available on my server.
>> The Spanish Inquisition is not sleeping. It has rung down the
>> curtain and joined the choir invisible. Effective Tuesday, 15 July 1834.
>
> And now replying to my own post:
> The Roman Inquisition was never disbanded, simply renamed.
>
> "This body was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
> in 1908 by Pope Saint Pius X. It was
> changed to Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
> on December 7, 1965, at the end of the Second Vatican
> Council. In 1983, with the new code of Canon law, "Sacred"
> was dropped from the names of Vatican Congregations."

Who knows what yet may come out of Spain? The Spaniards have a blood lust 
which erupts when least expected. The Spanish Civil War for instance. And 
bullfights do not speak well of a civilized people. Tom Sherman should be 
careful!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:29:24 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) said in <1iocu3v.18pr2tx1antt17N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
>in trade.

Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:48:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:29:24 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>Firth) said in <1iocu3v.18pr2tx1antt17N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
>>in trade.
>
>Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>
>Guy

Nice of you to keep things on the boil Guy - why not listen to the
advice given by the sensible people in urc?

I see you've been disputing the "children cycle helmets saga again" -
you know, the bit where you were caught altering your web page; here
it is:

Chapman consistently said that he had NEVER <my emphasis> encouraged
his children to wear cycle helmets.

On 13 August at 15:11 Chapman posted a message which said
"I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.  In fact, I have several times most
explicitly /not/ said that.  It is her inference from some pictures,
but I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets"

I knew that he had said it, as I had read it on his web pages.

I had been warned that he was a devious and despicable person who will
readily lie - so I took a copy of the relevant page and on 13 August
posted the link to the web page which contained the following:

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."

This of course is totally at odds with "I have NEVER <my emphasis>
said that I encourage my children to wear helmets". 

Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web
page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" - but
left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

When this was pointed out to him he squirmed and said it was just
coincidence but he had added those words to all of the pages that day
!!!!!

This is a prime example of his extreme economy with the truth.

Of course he could make it clear by answering the question:

If you looked at the relevant web page on 13 August 2008 - and you
looked at it today - will those pages be identical or will the latest
have added information  - which was NOT there on 13 August 2008.

An honest person would have said - "You are right - I had forgotten
that I had said that  - I have now altered the web page to say it is
out of date".

Chapman did not do that.

Chapman is not an honest person.



--   

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)

Nym-shifting is the surest sign of a troll.

Back in the killfile with you.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:06:11 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) said in <1iocvva.zagb8518ou2alN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>No, she leaps from other people's fact to her own fiction.

OK, that rings true.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:11:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>Nym-shifting is the surest sign of a troll.
>
>Back in the killfile with you.
>
>Guy

I do not know what you mean Guy - have you any comment on what I
posted - I assume that you read it.




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:17:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:06:11 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>Firth) said in <1iocvva.zagb8518ou2alN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>> Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>>No, she leaps from other people's fact to her own fiction.
>
>OK, that rings true.
>
>Guy

Hello Guy - thanks for the opportunity to speak with you.

Others have said that you are hell-bent on destroying URC - why is
that?

Did you see that clarification I wrote on the "children/helmets"
little porkies which you told:


Chapman consistently said that he had NEVER <my emphasis> encouraged
his children to wear cycle helmets.

On 13 August at 15:11 Chapman posted a message which said
"I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.  In fact, I have several times most
explicitly /not/ said that.  It is her inference from some pictures,
but I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets"

I knew that he had said it, as I had read it on his web pages.

I had been warned that he was a devious and despicable person who will
readily lie - so I took a copy of the relevant page and on 13 August
at 16:20 posted the link to the web page which contained the
following:

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."

This of course is totally at odds with "I have NEVER <my emphasis>
said that I encourage my children to wear helmets". 

Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web
page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" - but
left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

When this was pointed out to him he squirmed and said it was just
coincidence but he had added those words to all of the pages that day
!!!!!

This is a prime example of his extreme economy with the truth.

Of course he could make it clear by answering the question:

If you looked at the relevant web page on 13 August 2008 - and you
looked at it today - will those pages be identical or will the latest
have added information  - which was NOT there on 13 August 2008.

An honest person would have said - "You are right - I had forgotten
that I had said that  - I have now altered the web page to say it is
out of date".  Chapman did not do that.  Chapman is not an honest
person.

------- 

The "snide accusations" situation:

Chapman has accused me of making snide accusations or comments about
the author of Cyclecraft; I have never done so.

Chapman has been asked many times to quote those accusations which he
says that I made - he has never done so.  Obviously if I had done so -
he would easily be able to quote it.

This begs the question - why does he not do that?