On Jun 23, 7:33*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:13*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:



"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 22, 6:40 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 22, 4:07 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com..._liddle/articl...

You know, I'd have thought that you'd have generally agreed with what
Mr. Liddle was saying. I don't see, from your point of view, that you
would have found his views at all controversial.

Are you stalking to me?

Just wondering why you find Liddle's comments controversial?

But my dear Mr. Garvey. You keep telling me and all who will listen that
my
opinions are worthless.

But Mr. Jenkins, you didn't express an opinion, you posted a link and
said it was controversial. I don't see how you could find what was
written controversial, after all you have said?

You are asking me Mr Garvey why I found Rod Lidde's comments controversial.
Now to do that I would have to give my reasons; in other words my opinion
which I you claim to be worthless at any time.

Anyhow as you rightfully say, I didn't find Rod Liddle's comments
controversial at all. I assumed others would though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I certainly didn't "rightfully say" anything of the sort. I rightfully
said the opposite. Your title suggests that you did may have found his
comments controversial and your lack of comment did nothing to help
anyone to unravel the disorder of your thoughts. You assumed wrong
about "others". "Others" would ignore him (and they have) as he is a
hack who has written something to attract people to read his column
and sell the newspaper that employs him. You say you agree with his
comments; I don't think anyone here would be surprised by that as you
are heavily influenced by anyone who writes something that you agree
with. Indeed, your recent posts show that you are constantly scouring
the blogosphere for exactly those sentiments, posting links with no
explanation, or comment, as a result of your agenda-ridden searches.

Dawlish,

Rob Liddle was sacked from the BBC Today program because he broadcast
an interview with an Aussie backpacker who castigated some strikers(?)
as useless lazy sods, sic.! I would love to hear that interview
again. It was even more outrageous than the article that Lawrence
posted. I suspect Lawrence was just using a British euphemism for
'outrageous' when he wrote 'controversial'.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 22, 6:40 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 22, 4:07 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com..._liddle/articl...

You know, I'd have thought that you'd have generally agreed with what
Mr. Liddle was saying. I don't see, from your point of view, that you
would have found his views at all controversial.

Are you stalking to me?

Just wondering why you find Liddle's comments controversial?

But my dear Mr. Garvey. You keep telling me and all who will listen that
my
opinions are worthless.

But Mr. Jenkins, you didn't express an opinion, you posted a link and
said it was controversial. I don't see how you could find what was
written controversial, after all you have said?

You are asking me Mr Garvey why I found Rod Lidde's comments
controversial.
Now to do that I would have to give my reasons; in other words my opinion
which I you claim to be worthless at any time.

Anyhow as you rightfully say, I didn't find Rod Liddle's comments
controversial at all. I assumed others would though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I certainly didn't "rightfully say" anything of the sort. I rightfully
said the opposite. Your title suggests that you did may have found his
comments controversial and your lack of comment did nothing to help
anyone to unravel the disorder of your thoughts. You assumed wrong
about "others". "Others" would ignore him (and they have) as he is a
hack who has written something to attract people to read his column
and sell the newspaper that employs him. You say you agree with his
comments; I don't think anyone here would be surprised by that as you
are heavily influenced by anyone who writes something that you agree
with. Indeed, your recent posts show that you are constantly scouring
the blogosphere for exactly those sentiments, posting links with no
explanation, or comment, as a result of your agenda-ridden searches.


Whatever...........next.

On Jun 23, 5:35*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 22, 6:40 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 22, 4:07 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com..._liddle/articl...

You know, I'd have thought that you'd have generally agreed with what
Mr. Liddle was saying. I don't see, from your point of view, that you
would have found his views at all controversial.

Are you stalking to me?

Just wondering why you find Liddle's comments controversial?

But my dear Mr. Garvey. You keep telling me and all who will listen that
my
opinions are worthless.

But Mr. Jenkins, you didn't express an opinion, you posted a link and
said it was controversial. I don't see how you could find what was
written controversial, after all you have said?

You are asking me Mr Garvey why I found Rod Lidde's comments
controversial.
Now to do that I would have to give my reasons; in other words my opinion
which I you claim to be worthless at any time.

Anyhow as you rightfully say, I didn't find Rod Liddle's comments
controversial at all. I assumed others would though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I certainly didn't "rightfully say" anything of the sort. I rightfully
said the opposite. Your title suggests that you did may have found his
comments controversial and your lack of comment did nothing to help
anyone to unravel the disorder of your thoughts. You assumed wrong
about "others". "Others" would ignore him (and they have) as he is a
hack who has written something to attract people to read his column
and sell the newspaper that employs him. You say you agree with his
comments; I don't think anyone here would be surprised by that as you
are heavily influenced by anyone who writes something that you agree
with. Indeed, your recent posts show that you are constantly scouring
the blogosphere for exactly those sentiments, posting links with no
explanation, or comment, as a result of your agenda-ridden searches.

Whatever...........next.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The "next" is likely to be one of three things from you,:

Either a link to a newspaper report, or a blog, which sympathises with
your tiny minority views and about which you write no comment or
explanation, but present as some kind of "evidence" that you are
right.

Or a polemic against the government/Met office/Police force/whoever
which castigates them for not believing what you do and thus clearly
demonstrates that there is GW conspiracy afoot.

Or some abuse.

On 23 June, 10:18, Graham P Davis wrote:
Natsman wrote:
Crikey, I could almost have written that article myself. *Rather
echoes what I said in another thread, and for which my opinion was
castigated and regarded as "bizarre" and "stupid"...

Nice to see that you have a Liddle company in your misinformed opinions.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

Nothing misinformed about MY opinions, matey - the only misinformation
stems from dodgy (and inaccurate) weather forecasts!

CK