On Mar 3, 7:12*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:



If that's a free consultation, it was grossly over-priced. But now I
know what is wrong with our schools.
Anyone have a list of this person's online names?

Why would you want a list of my online names?

What do you intend doing with such a list?

On Mar 5, 4:44*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:12*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Anyone have a list of this person's online names?

Why would you want a list of my online names?

What do you intend doing with such a list?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
(I know you are a bit hard of reading so I will just mention that I
asked first and leave others to explain.)

On Mar 6, 3:19*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:44*pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:12*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Anyone have a list of this person's online names?

Why would you want a list of my online names?

What do you intend doing with such a list?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
(I know you are a bit hard of reading so I will just mention that I
asked first and leave others to explain.)

I have re-read all your posts on this thread, and the only question
that you have asked is:- was Stan Garvey someone from Crossroads?

I'm afraid that I have no idea whether he was on Crossroads or not, so
I can't answer your question however irrelevant it might be.

You didn't ask me if I had any other online names, presumably because
you have not got the guts. You asked anyone here if they had a list of
my online names.

I find this a most sinister development for a couple of reasons;

1, That you expect people on this newsgroup to be compiling a list of
online names for other contributors who may not agree with your views.

2, That you go on the defensive when asked what you would do with such
a list if one came into your possession.

Given that this is one of a number of threads where a group of people
are trying to argue that one person is bullying them, rather than the
other way round - you may wish to reconsider your strategy.

On Mar 6, 11:46*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:19*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Mar 5, 4:44*pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:12*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Anyone have a list of this person's online names?

Why would you want a list of my online names?

What do you intend doing with such a list?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
(I know you are a bit hard of reading so I will just mention that I
asked first and leave others to explain.)

I have re-read all your posts on this thread, and the only question
that you have asked is:- was Stan Garvey someone from Crossroads?

I'm afraid that I have no idea whether he was on Crossroads or not, so
I can't answer your question however irrelevant it might be.

You didn't ask me if I had any other online names, presumably because
you have not got the guts. You asked anyone here if they had a list of
my online names.

I find this a most sinister development for a couple of reasons;

1, That you expect people on this newsgroup to be compiling a list of
online names for other contributors who may not agree with your views.

2, That you go on the defensive when asked what you would do with such
a list if one came into your possession.

Given that this is one of a number of threads where a group of people
are trying to argue that one person is bullying them, rather than the
other way round - you may wish to reconsider your strategy.

Hear now the reason
Where reason begins
Your eyes are your temple.
And you bang into things
Forearmed is forehead
Dullish with pain
You reach out in wonder that none will explain.

On Monday, February 27, 2012 7:19:54 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Sorry about this as it seems to be dragging the group down and I'm
going to stop posting for good while as some people here become very
aggressive and nasty if you show any disagreement. The whole thing is
becoming ugly and I'm partly responsible as I get involved in these
ding dongs.

Mr Garvey is patently quite bonkers and once I stop posting he will
find somebody else to fall out with as that seems to be his nature.



Paul Garvey has emailed threatening me with some sort of legal
action.

He claims I physically threatened him some time ago when basically he
was so arrogantly rude I offered him the opportunity to say it to me
man to man.

Okay a bit Macho and stupid but he really is to ready with insults and
general rudeness. I place this here as he is a madman and I want
everything open out in public, This is what he has just emailed me.





"I warned you last time, when you issued a verbal threat, that I would
act if you did anything similar. This afternoon, I registered your
details, two posts of threats of physical violence that you've been
silly enough to issue and this potential stalking. If you *ever*
decided to cross the moral boundary and holiday down here with intent
against me, the letter that is held by Jamie will show the intent was
planned.

One more actual threat of physical violence and Jamie sends the letter
on to the police. I can assure you they will pay you a visit.

I can't be clearer. Stick to the science and you'll have no problems.
issue threats, veiled, or otherwise and I will act. I've done it
before with great success, stopping what the police decribed as
"potentially dangerous" staking early on and I'll do it again."


Paul you need to see a therapist of some sort .

Its obviously a viscous cycle Larry. Leave it out he aint worth it

"Jim Cannon" wrote in message
...
On Monday, February 27, 2012 7:19:54 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Snip

Paul you need to see a therapist of some sort .

Its obviously a viscous cycle Larry. Leave it out he aint worth it

If you want him to 'leave it out', why have you dredged up a 2½ year old
post??
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

in 405620 20141025 021606 Jim Cannon wrote:

Its obviously a viscous cycle Larry. Leave it out he aint worth it

A "viscous cycle", now there's a thought!

On Monday, February 27, 2012 7:19:54 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Sorry about this as it seems to be dragging the group down and I'm
going to stop posting for good while as some people here become very
aggressive and nasty if you show any disagreement. The whole thing is
becoming ugly and I'm partly responsible as I get involved in these
ding dongs.

Mr Garvey is patently quite bonkers and once I stop posting he will
find somebody else to fall out with as that seems to be his nature.



Paul Garvey has emailed threatening me with some sort of legal
action.

He claims I physically threatened him some time ago when basically he
was so arrogantly rude I offered him the opportunity to say it to me
man to man.

Okay a bit Macho and stupid but he really is to ready with insults and
general rudeness. I place this here as he is a madman and I want
everything open out in public, This is what he has just emailed me.





"I warned you last time, when you issued a verbal threat, that I would
act if you did anything similar. This afternoon, I registered your
details, two posts of threats of physical violence that you've been
silly enough to issue and this potential stalking. If you *ever*
decided to cross the moral boundary and holiday down here with intent
against me, the letter that is held by Jamie will show the intent was
planned.

One more actual threat of physical violence and Jamie sends the letter
on to the police. I can assure you they will pay you a visit.

I can't be clearer. Stick to the science and you'll have no problems.
issue threats, veiled, or otherwise and I will act. I've done it
before with great success, stopping what the police decribed as
"potentially dangerous" staking early on and I'll do it again."


Paul you need to see a therapist of some sort .

You've now threatened a whole bunch of people on different newsgroups and you have been confronted by a strengthening of the law. Hurts, doesnt it, eh larry?

On Saturday, 25 October 2014 11:03:47 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2012 7:19:54 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Sorry about this as it seems to be dragging the group down and I'm
going to stop posting for good while as some people here become very
aggressive and nasty if you show any disagreement. The whole thing is
becoming ugly and I'm partly responsible as I get involved in these
ding dongs.

Mr Garvey is patently quite bonkers and once I stop posting he will
find somebody else to fall out with as that seems to be his nature.



Paul Garvey has emailed threatening me with some sort of legal
action.

He claims I physically threatened him some time ago when basically he
was so arrogantly rude I offered him the opportunity to say it to me
man to man.

Okay a bit Macho and stupid but he really is to ready with insults and
general rudeness. I place this here as he is a madman and I want
everything open out in public, This is what he has just emailed me.





"I warned you last time, when you issued a verbal threat, that I would
act if you did anything similar. This afternoon, I registered your
details, two posts of threats of physical violence that you've been
silly enough to issue and this potential stalking. If you *ever*
decided to cross the moral boundary and holiday down here with intent
against me, the letter that is held by Jamie will show the intent was
planned.

One more actual threat of physical violence and Jamie sends the letter
on to the police. I can assure you they will pay you a visit.

I can't be clearer. Stick to the science and you'll have no problems.
issue threats, veiled, or otherwise and I will act. I've done it
before with great success, stopping what the police decribed as
"potentially dangerous" staking early on and I'll do it again."


Paul you need to see a therapist of some sort .

You've now threatened a whole bunch of people on different newsgroups and you have been confronted by a strengthening of the law. Hurts, doesnt it, eh larry?



Not as much as your nose would if you walked into a lamp post. I mean that really does smart.

On Saturday, 25 October 2014 09:58:30 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 405620 20141025 021606 Jim Cannon wrote:

Its obviously a viscous cycle Larry. Leave it out he aint worth it

A "viscous cycle", now there's a thought!


A viscous cycle is the product of 'big oil; the *******s

But a 'cycle path'? All green tarmac which we know is far better for the environment than the black stuff but liable towards violent malicious behaviour, so is it really better.