On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:39:14 AM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 7:42:16 AM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 9:31:37 PM UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 5:34:50 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:57:19 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 2:57:57 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 21:48:25 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

And as usual, I see you obsessed with me and paying no attention whatsoever to the thread.

Really?? Apart from the fact that you replied to my alternative view to your hack's poor article immediately after you'd posted this. Nothing ever works for you hughes, does it? You say one thing about me in one post, then totally contradict your scribblings in the next. The knots you tie yourself in are myriad and the clear obsession is yours, dear boy.

Dig away, should you wish, or return to the thread title and continue your moaning.


Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

My post, to which this is a reply, is for some reason not quoted here despite that being the normal practice. You have quoted your own previous post but not mine. Nobody will know who you're talking to.

Also, you have put *my* name at the end of *your* post, not for the first time. Why?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

He's started doing the same in replies to me. I've (politely) asked him to stop as it's now clearly deliberate.

Graham
Penzance - Cool, but dry & fairly sunny today.

I always do it. I reply to parts of the body of posts and I don't sign off. I've done it thousands of times and I reply to others in that way too. Always have. Never noticed that? That would be because you've just failed to find another way to castigate, haven't you?

Nothing ever works, hughes, does it?

Or even Mr Easterling....

Any comments about you two being totally out of touch with present day BBC audiences, instead of me? It's honestly hard keeping up with you. All my comments to Graham's (inaccurate, IMO) post and a reply which concentrates, not on the thread, but upon little old me.

Get over it.

My original post:-

"I certainly do (agree) . The constant reference to rush hours is one of my pet hates."

I wrote this because I agreed with the original post, and I'm fed up hearing references to the rush hour"

Nothing about target audiences or you - geddit!

Well I tried the polite approach. - You ****bag

Graham
Penzance


Graham
Penzance