On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:27:44 +0000, Old Codger 
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:12:13 +0000, Old Codger
> wrote:
>
>>Old Codger wrote:
>>
>>No he didn't, it was *another* Pete forgery.
>
>No he didn't, it was *another* Pete forgery.

No he didn't, it was *another* Pete forgery.

On Jan 19, 12:51 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:45:51 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
> >> >> >> >you obviously know better - as always.
>
> >> >> >> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>
> >> >> >Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
> >> >> >about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>
> >> >> So you made it up.
>
> >> >Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
> >> >spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
> >> >stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
> >> >recollection error to stuff one to you.
>
> >> No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.
>
> >Oh yes I did.  But I won't crow about it any longer 'cos it's not that
> >hard to stuff one to an easy target like you.
>
> You've just had another senior moment.

Really. I don't recall that :-))

> Do dementia sufferers have to pay for their treatment in France?

No.

> >> >> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
> >> >> well?
>
> >> >You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
> >> >has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
> >> >supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
> >> >Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
> >> >polloi'
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> >> >If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
> >> >> >profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
> >> >> >Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>
> >> >> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>
> >> >So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
> >> >does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
> >> >stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
> >> >Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.
>
> >> Who's Pete?
>
> >See below
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> >> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
> >> >> >privately without asking the address owner first
>
> >> >> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>
> >> >Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
> >> >one.
>
> >> Who's Pete?
>
> >Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know.
>
> No idea.
>
> > I recognise that
> >you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>
> Well, who's Pete.  You keep going on about this but never come up with
> any answers.

Do your own research. Everybody else here has been told to - by you,
no less.

> >> >> >> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
> >> >> >> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
> >> >> >> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
> >> >> >> >posting, you know.
>
> >> >> >> You've a vivid imagination.
>
> >> >> >> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>
> >> >> >If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
> >> >> >you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
> >> >> >way it's done.
>
> >> >> What paper's that?
>
> >> >Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
> >> >self-publicist.
>
> >> >> Andrex?
>
> >> >Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.
>
> >> Answering your posts must be something to do with it.
>
> >Have you tried to stop. Oh, I forgot. You're obsessed.
>
> Forgot again!  Definitely dementia.  Will this bring you scurrying
> back to the UK?

I expect you know the old Lancashire saying, " I mebbe daft, lad, but
I airn't bludy stoopid." Just the response I need when the subject of
return to the UK comes up.