On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:35*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're

never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-

one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.

He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?

PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))

* * * *The present round of invective was triggered by Will's

straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason

he left was because of you. *Yes, you, *Paul Garvey of Dawlish. *You

simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. *I say

"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and

Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.

* * * *As for "style" you simply haven't got it. *If I walked into my

pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless

and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it

was my "style".

* * * Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer

pomposity and lack of self-awareness. *They read like corporate

bollock-speak.

* * * I can't make sense of your second paragraph. *Who is the "He"

referred to? * *Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? *Can't

be; there's no reference to him in my post. *Is it me? *Can't be; the

reply is to me. *And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea

that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. *And who is the "far

right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. *Is it Lawrence?

He's probably younger than you, you know. *No, he can't be, you're

14.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?

Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * * What's this "lie" you're banging on about?

* * * What amazes me about you is the level of denial you show.

Saying that Will is "resting" reminds me of the Monty Python Parrot

Sketch where the dead parrot is claimed by the pet-shop owner to be

merely "resting". *Of course it was. *We all need a rest from you,

anyway. *Two weather groups solved the problem in the most obvious way

by banning you. *You're probably in denial over that, too.

* * * You are such a fool. *Do you realise that very few people on

this group are going to agree with or amplify anything you write, even

on AGW, simply for not wanting to be in any way associated with you?

* * * I have a voluminous postbag from over the years in which the

source of your dysfunctional personality is discussed at length. *I

don't think you'd like to read it but you ought to. *Something,

surely, must be able to penetrate the battlements you have built round

yourself and from which you fire your poison darts.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control.. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.

Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Let it lie"?? Who do you think you are, the Director of Public
Prosecutions?
Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite
kosher. So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.

I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. Get help.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:

Snipped for clarity

Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.

Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Let it lie"?? Who do you think you are, the Director of Public

Prosecutions?

Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite

kosher. So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.

I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. Get help.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.

No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:

"21/04/2013

Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. You are an absolute disgrace. Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. You can publish this wherever you like.

Mr Hughes."

Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.

On Monday, 22 April 2013 19:49:33 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:



Snipped for clarity



Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.



Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -



- Show quoted text -



"Let it lie"?? Who do you think you are, the Director of Public



Prosecutions?



Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite



kosher. So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.



I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. Get help.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.



No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:



"21/04/2013



Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. You are an absolute disgrace. Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. You can publish this wherever you like.



Mr Hughes."



Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.

I've give up Garvey. Why do you always do this drive people to despair then you try and use their reaction in a private email as some sort of weapon against them. Tudor, myself and everyone has every right on this planet to get ****ed of with your sour nasty humourless and just disgraceful childish spiteful behaviour. You are just unbelievably stupid and immature. I've said it before but the thought of YOU being a teacher send shudders down my spine. You must have been a monster and it makes me wonder why you stopped teaching. Parent revolt probably.

In Tudor's wise private and appropriate words. **** off and die Garvey no amount of effort at trying to create a more congenial atmosphere is possible with you around you are like the proverbial bad apple that ruins everything you touch.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 8:45:46 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 22 April 2013 19:49:33 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:



On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:







Snipped for clarity







Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.







Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -







- Show quoted text -







"Let it lie"?? Who do you think you are, the Director of Public







Prosecutions?







Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite







kosher. So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.







I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. Get help.







Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.







Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.







No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:







"21/04/2013







Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. You are an absolute disgrace. Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. You can publish this wherever you like.







Mr Hughes."







Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.



I've give up Garvey. Why do you always do this drive people to despair then you try and use their reaction in a private email as some sort of weapon against them. Tudor, myself and everyone has every right on this planet to get ****ed of with your sour nasty humourless and just disgraceful childish spiteful behaviour. You are just unbelievably stupid and immature. I've said it before but the thought of YOU being a teacher send shudders down my spine. You must have been a monster and it makes me wonder why you stopped teaching. Parent revolt probably.



In Tudor's wise private and appropriate words. **** off and die Garvey no amount of effort at trying to create a more congenial atmosphere is possible with you around you are like the proverbial bad apple that ruins everything you touch.

Your opinion is noted.

On Apr 22, 7:49*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:

Snipped for clarity

Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.
Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
* * * "Let it lie"?? *Who do you think you are, the Director of Public

Prosecutions?

*Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite

kosher. *So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.
* * I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. *Get help.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.

No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:

"21/04/2013

Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. *You are an absolute disgrace. *Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. *A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. *You can publish this wherever you like.

* * Mr Hughes."

Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.

You can keep the moral high ground. I just prefer to get on
with people and seem to be OK at it. But then I've never had to deal
with a pompous bullying immature phoney with a truly magnificent
inferiority complex. A well-balanced man with a huge chip on each
shoulder. One just ostracises them; they mend their ways if they are
at all grown up, and something like harmony is restored. We've all
learnt this, either as children or gobby teenagers. Not you though,
the wrecker of groups. Far too self-important and childish. Go away
and sort yourself out, you pillock.

Will you publish your email to Alan White, so as to strengthen
your claim to the moral high ground? Thought not.

You are like an incompetent footballer who lacks the skill to
make a clean challenge so fouls repeatedly, going in recklessly, studs
up, either causing injury or heedless of whether it is or not and then
claiming the fouled player is faking it. This doesn't go down too
well with the other players and ruins the game. So, regardless of
intent, it's a red card. Off you go!

Tudor hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:10:36 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:49*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:



Snipped for clarity



Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.

Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * * "Let it lie"?? *Who do you think you are, the Director of Public



Prosecutions?



*Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite



kosher. *So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.

* * I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. *Get help.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.



No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:



"21/04/2013



Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. *You are an absolute disgrace. *Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. *A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. *You can publish this wherever you like.



* * Mr Hughes."



Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.



You can keep the moral high ground. I just prefer to get on

with people and seem to be OK at it. But then I've never had to deal

with a pompous bullying immature phoney with a truly magnificent

inferiority complex. A well-balanced man with a huge chip on each

shoulder. One just ostracises them; they mend their ways if they are

at all grown up, and something like harmony is restored. We've all

learnt this, either as children or gobby teenagers. Not you though,

the wrecker of groups. Far too self-important and childish. Go away

and sort yourself out, you pillock.



Will you publish your email to Alan White, so as to strengthen

your claim to the moral high ground? Thought not.



You are like an incompetent footballer who lacks the skill to

make a clean challenge so fouls repeatedly, going in recklessly, studs

up, either causing injury or heedless of whether it is or not and then

claiming the fouled player is faking it. This doesn't go down too

well with the other players and ruins the game. So, regardless of

intent, it's a red card. Off you go!



Tudor hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh dear.

On Apr 22, 7:49*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:

Snipped for clarity

Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.
Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
* * * "Let it lie"?? *Who do you think you are, the Director of Public

Prosecutions?

*Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite

kosher. *So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.
* * I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. *Get help.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.

No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:

"21/04/2013

Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. *You are an absolute disgrace. *Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. *A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. *You can publish this wherever you like.

* * Mr Hughes."

Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.

Where is your hoped-for gale of condemnation? I see it not.
For all the group cares you may as well have revealed that I admit to
farting in bed. What a magnificent example of your own absurd self-
importance, detachment from reality and consequent misjudgment of
people. You are now truly a figure of fun, like a pantomime villain.
Get a grip!

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:54:11 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:49*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:42:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 22, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:



Snipped for clarity



Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's *revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.

Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * * "Let it lie"?? *Who do you think you are, the Director of Public



Prosecutions?



*Be very careful; I've got one or two from you that are not quite



kosher. *So would Alan White, if he hadn't deleted it.

* * I reckon you're a few turns short of a solenoid, mate. *Get help.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



Oh well. No apology, or retraction so here's the email - you did say I could publish it anywhere, but although I gave you a chance to let it lie, your hubris and pride got the better of you.



No idea what I've "got to be very careful about". Please post any from me that you have received and let others judge that. None are in any way abusive and none even vaguely approach this - I've never sent an email to *anyone* that approached the depths of this:



"21/04/2013



Lawrie starts an innocent and self-deprecating post and you poison it immediately. *You are an absolute disgrace. *Why don't you do us all a favour and just **** off and die. *A **** of the first magnitude, unversally despised. *You can publish this wherever you like.



* * Mr Hughes."



Good luck with attaining the moral high ground.



Where is your hoped-for gale of condemnation? I see it not.

For all the group cares you may as well have revealed that I admit to

farting in bed. What a magnificent example of your own absurd self-

importance, detachment from reality and consequent misjudgment of

people. You are now truly a figure of fun, like a pantomime villain.

Get a grip!



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

It is not my fault that you are out of control hughes. Your dislike of an individual takes you to places where a normal person would not go.

Shame, but true.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:54:11 -0700, Tudor Hughes wrote:

Get a grip!

Cura te ipsum!