On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 8:45:06 PM UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 2 January 2016 16:53:27 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:18:34 PM UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 2 January 2016 07:04:54 UTC, Col wrote:
On 02/01/2016 02:21, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 1 January 2016 11:20:34 UTC, jumper wrote:


I agree Col, this newsgroup as become most acrimonious.


Well, it was your post that started it (a reply to Weatherlawyer) and you have a lot to answer for. Of course the shemozzle was made much worse, as ever, by the Bishop of Dawlish, who spied an opening for him to practise his venom-spitting while simultaneously adjusting his halo. That reaction can be "safely ignored" as The Bish would say. But there's no excuse for your words in a group like this. Keep them for yacking to your mates, or whatever. Then you complain about the group becoming acrimonious which shows a level of self-awareness comparable to that of a bin-liner. Never mind the sodding Bishop - none of us like racist stuff. You are so selfish.

That's exactly the reply he was trolling for!

--
Col

Who? You replied to jumper yourself, quite rightly, too. Or did you mean St Paul's Twenty-thousandth Letter To The Weather Groups? Plenty have had their say on that junk mail, but to little effect.
I dunno, this group is doin' my 'ead in.

Tudor Hughes.

Oh marvellous! hughes tries to bring me into it, as always, using my condemnation of the racist to attempt his usual weak attempt at having a go at me. Just hilarious.

Hasn't worked, yet again, hughes, has it?

You were quite unnecessarily pedantic and bossy about Stephen Davenport's post and its commas yet you commit a far more egregious error by spelling my name and that of others with a small letter. Obviously your grammatical standards are subject to considerable variability, dependent on El Nino, maybe, or the fortunes of Crewe Alexandra. Who knows? It's a mystery!

Tudor Hughes.

Oh dear, hughes tries again. Fails miserably, again.

Tip. You just aren't up to this hughes and you never achieve your aim, so it might be best ignoring me? I doubt very much you'll be able to do that though, as you clearly need me and find it impossible to not step in to a thread on which you are not wanted, when you think there might be an opportunity to achieve that elusive outcome.

Like the man pushing the boulder up the hill hughes isn't it? The boulder is always there and the hill never gets easier. laughing