On Monday, 13 April 2015 09:26:58 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:19:05 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 21:26:46 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 8:45:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 18:43:56 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote: "However, your tenderness towards illegal drug users is noted." Just hilarious. Anything, hughes, isn't it really, just anything to continue your digs and your support for larry's pathetic and foul little term 'methers'. You and larry have *so* much in common. laughing Go on. Make even more of a fool of yourself.


Are there no methamphetamine users in Dawlish? I bet there are and I bet there are quite a number of ****heads too. More importantly, I bet that neither of these groups has your entire approval and that you may possibly refer to them at times in impolite colloquial terms. So what's all this about the druggies of SE20, then? Clearly they are the lilies of the field for some mysterious reason. But you don't believe that. Such hypocrisy! Lawrie and I are quite different in many ways, BTW. What we do share, along with the vast majority of the population, is a smidgeon of self-awareness and the ability to get on with people. Maybe this is what irks you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And you did. Just hilarious. laughing

You and larry are like peas in a pod, in so many ways, but the comparison is one that you don't like, do you? You bring it on yourself, hughes; you bring it on yourself. laughing

Bring *what* on myself, precisely? I feel no opprobrium, none at all, so again, what have I brought on myself? Your disapproval. Bugger me, I quake in my shoes. Do you seriously expect me to be upset by the fact that you reckon Lawrie and I are near-identical? You're mad, quite mad! On a scale of 0-100 I'd say you have a social IQ of about -6. Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you. Your colossal capacity for unpleasantness and for inducing it in others is something we can do without..

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

In the past, you've felt no opprobrium at calling people C***s in this newsgroup, hughes, either, have you? Indeed, you've justified it because the term was directed at me. You and larry have *so* much in common. You feel you can say anything and it is perfectly OK, because you feel justified, as you don't like the person replying to you. Just look at that abuse-filled post you've just written again.

No-one asked you to join this thread, you decided to. Now you are struggling to justify your actions, as you initially described the OP as: "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting with a self-deprecating title and that I replied to it." Your best defence now is: "Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you". You know an argument has been lost a long time ago when people like you start that.

If a foul personage like larry decides to tar people he would never know with some foul little brush of his and you support him, you'll find that not everyone is happy. I for one, as others often do, will tell you and him that the initial posting was not acceptable. You won't like that and your reaction to being told is so typical of so many. It is not the thing you do which is wrong, it is the fact that someone has told you it is wrong.

Go on hughes: dig your shared hole with larry a little deeper and throw in a little more abuse as your only spade. laughing again

PS The next way out is "This will be my last post on the subject............(with some more abuse thrown in)." It's the usual Internet escape route when an argument is lost. The fact remains, through all your abuse, that you are quite simply wrong to support larry's position with regard to the term 'methers'. The term is foul, as are both are for your supporting it.

PPS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting "

I say, Methers, old chap, could you deal with this fellow? He seems to having a fit of the vapours, don'cha know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 2:52:25 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 April 2015 09:26:58 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:19:05 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 21:26:46 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 8:45:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 18:43:56 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote: "However, your tenderness towards illegal drug users is noted." Just hilarious. Anything, hughes, isn't it really, just anything to continue your digs and your support for larry's pathetic and foul little term 'methers'. You and larry have *so* much in common. laughing Go on. Make even more of a fool of yourself.


Are there no methamphetamine users in Dawlish? I bet there are and I bet there are quite a number of ****heads too. More importantly, I bet that neither of these groups has your entire approval and that you may possibly refer to them at times in impolite colloquial terms. So what's all this about the druggies of SE20, then? Clearly they are the lilies of the field for some mysterious reason. But you don't believe that. Such hypocrisy! Lawrie and I are quite different in many ways, BTW. What we do share, along with the vast majority of the population, is a smidgeon of self-awareness and the ability to get on with people. Maybe this is what irks you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And you did. Just hilarious. laughing

You and larry are like peas in a pod, in so many ways, but the comparison is one that you don't like, do you? You bring it on yourself, hughes; you bring it on yourself. laughing

Bring *what* on myself, precisely? I feel no opprobrium, none at all, so again, what have I brought on myself? Your disapproval. Bugger me, I quake in my shoes. Do you seriously expect me to be upset by the fact that you reckon Lawrie and I are near-identical? You're mad, quite mad! On a scale of 0-100 I'd say you have a social IQ of about -6. Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you. Your colossal capacity for unpleasantness and for inducing it in others is something we can do without.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

In the past, you've felt no opprobrium at calling people C***s in this newsgroup, hughes, either, have you? Indeed, you've justified it because the term was directed at me. You and larry have *so* much in common. You feel you can say anything and it is perfectly OK, because you feel justified, as you don't like the person replying to you. Just look at that abuse-filled post you've just written again.

No-one asked you to join this thread, you decided to. Now you are struggling to justify your actions, as you initially described the OP as: "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting with a self-deprecating title and that I replied to it." Your best defence now is: "Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you". You know an argument has been lost a long time ago when people like you start that.

If a foul personage like larry decides to tar people he would never know with some foul little brush of his and you support him, you'll find that not everyone is happy. I for one, as others often do, will tell you and him that the initial posting was not acceptable. You won't like that and your reaction to being told is so typical of so many. It is not the thing you do which is wrong, it is the fact that someone has told you it is wrong.

Go on hughes: dig your shared hole with larry a little deeper and throw in a little more abuse as your only spade. laughing again

PS The next way out is "This will be my last post on the subject............(with some more abuse thrown in)." It's the usual Internet escape route when an argument is lost. The fact remains, through all your abuse, that you are quite simply wrong to support larry's position with regard to the term 'methers'. The term is foul, as are both are for your supporting it.

PPS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting "

I say, Methers, old chap, could you deal with this fellow? He seems to having a fit of the vapours, don'cha know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And a larry attempt at an escape route, as Ive denied you your usual one by anticipating it. No acceptance of the foulness of the comment, just an attempt at a sidestep. You have no idea how similar you both sound in your foulness. No idea at all.

PS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting ". Your words, hughes; no-one else's.

On 13/04/15 14:52, Tudor Hughes wrote:

PS The next way out is "This will be my last post on the
subject...........(with some more abuse thrown in)." It's the usual
Internet escape route when an argument is lost. The fact remains,
through all your abuse, that you are quite simply wrong to support
larry's position with regard to the term 'methers'. The term is
foul, as are both are for your supporting it.


Instead of a bead-rattling contest, it's always best to look the word up
first

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mether

Of the two 'derived terms' shown there, it might be said that one lives
in the south-east and one in the south-west. Just a matter of deciding
which is whom.

In more modern usage, 'meth' usually refers to either methamphetamine or
methicillin, the latter perhaps most famously as the M in MRSA, neither
of which drug will help two little boys grow up (except perhaps in
extreme overdose).


--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/

On Monday, 13 April 2015 15:10:14 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 2:52:25 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 April 2015 09:26:58 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:19:05 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 21:26:46 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 8:45:11 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 12 April 2015 18:43:56 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote: "However, your tenderness towards illegal drug users is noted." Just hilarious. Anything, hughes, isn't it really, just anything to continue your digs and your support for larry's pathetic and foul little term 'methers'. You and larry have *so* much in common. laughing Go on. Make even more of a fool of yourself.


Are there no methamphetamine users in Dawlish? I bet there are and I bet there are quite a number of ****heads too. More importantly, I bet that neither of these groups has your entire approval and that you may possibly refer to them at times in impolite colloquial terms. So what's all this about the druggies of SE20, then? Clearly they are the lilies of the field for some mysterious reason. But you don't believe that. Such hypocrisy! Lawrie and I are quite different in many ways, BTW. What we do share, along with the vast majority of the population, is a smidgeon of self-awareness and the ability to get on with people. Maybe this is what irks you.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And you did. Just hilarious. laughing

You and larry are like peas in a pod, in so many ways, but the comparison is one that you don't like, do you? You bring it on yourself, hughes; you bring it on yourself. laughing

Bring *what* on myself, precisely? I feel no opprobrium, none at all, so again, what have I brought on myself? Your disapproval. Bugger me, I quake in my shoes. Do you seriously expect me to be upset by the fact that you reckon Lawrie and I are near-identical? You're mad, quite mad! On a scale of 0-100 I'd say you have a social IQ of about -6. Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you. Your colossal capacity for unpleasantness and for inducing it in others is something we can do without.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

In the past, you've felt no opprobrium at calling people C***s in this newsgroup, hughes, either, have you? Indeed, you've justified it because the term was directed at me. You and larry have *so* much in common. You feel you can say anything and it is perfectly OK, because you feel justified, as you don't like the person replying to you. Just look at that abuse-filled post you've just written again.

No-one asked you to join this thread, you decided to. Now you are struggling to justify your actions, as you initially described the OP as: "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting with a self-deprecating title and that I replied to it." Your best defence now is: "Just sod off and get it sorted; we've had enough of you". You know an argument has been lost a long time ago when people like you start that.

If a foul personage like larry decides to tar people he would never know with some foul little brush of his and you support him, you'll find that not everyone is happy. I for one, as others often do, will tell you and him that the initial posting was not acceptable. You won't like that and your reaction to being told is so typical of so many. It is not the thing you do which is wrong, it is the fact that someone has told you it is wrong.

Go on hughes: dig your shared hole with larry a little deeper and throw in a little more abuse as your only spade. laughing again

PS The next way out is "This will be my last post on the subject............(with some more abuse thrown in)." It's the usual Internet escape route when an argument is lost. The fact remains, through all your abuse, that you are quite simply wrong to support larry's position with regard to the term 'methers'. The term is foul, as are both are for your supporting it.

PPS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting "

I say, Methers, old chap, could you deal with this fellow? He seems to having a fit of the vapours, don'cha know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

And a larry attempt at an escape route, as Ive denied you your usual one by anticipating it. No acceptance of the foulness of the comment, just an attempt at a sidestep. You have no idea how similar you both sound in your foulness. No idea at all.

PS Remember "...Lawrie put up a harmless little posting ". Your words, hughes; no-one else's.

How much longer are you going to pursue this fiction of being disgusted by the word "methers" when the real reason for your post was hatred of Lawrie and "methers" a contrived hook to hang it on. You are so utterly twisted, bonkers and hate-filled. And such a hypocrite and liar!

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Very similar to how 'Paki' is a 'fiction' to some racists here hughes.

You are the kind of person who would justify such descriptions of real and very challenged people, simply because it is what you believe should be the case. Racists, sexists, etc. etc. think exactly the same way. The terms they use are perfectly OK to them, thus they should be OK to everyone else.

Well no they are not, hughes and you should know better. It is a poor reflection on you that you don't.

That would involve talking to them. Something a foul, hate-ridden piece of work like you would never, ever, do larry.

On Monday, 13 April 2015 17:37:37 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
Very similar to how 'Paki' is a 'fiction' to some racists here hughes.

You are the kind of person who would justify such descriptions of real and very challenged people, simply because it is what you believe should be the case. Racists, sexists, etc. etc. think exactly the same way. The terms they use are perfectly OK to them, thus they should be OK to everyone else.

Well no they are not, hughes and you should know better. It is a poor reflection on you that you don't.



Paul you really need to stop this nonsense. Tudor is very left in his views and I'm sure he won't mind me saying that and the reason although I know he disagrees with much of my views, that we both are okayish with each other is that we've actually met up some years ago. The reason for that meet was the NG and that Tudor knew the son of my next door neighbour who has sadly since died.

Paul you love searching the NG so look back to the past and see how many times Tudor has told me to shut it.

The initial post was about just how lovely the weather has been and how this had brought out daffs and alcoholics (methers) in my local park. It was actually a very accurate description but my main pint was a joke based on that juxtaposition, laughing at myself and mentioning the weather. But I'm sure you realise all of that but persist with this indignant ranting just for effect. If not then you are a very paranoid person Paul.


Infamy, infamy , they've all got it in for me. Seriously that's what it sounds like.

We know what your snide little post was about larry. As I said before *just* talk about the weather and no-one including me, would have any complaint.

The trouble is that you can't and you try to impose your far right wing, crappy and foul views at every possible opportunity in your posts. When you do, expect challenge. Then expect to have to deal with the challenge - or don't dobit and stick to just talking about the weather.

Geddit? Just the weather.

On Monday, 13 April 2015 18:41:08 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
We know what your snide little post was about larry. As I said before *just* talk about the weather and no-one including me, would have any complaint.

The trouble is that you can't and you try to impose your far right wing, crappy and foul views at every possible opportunity in your posts. When you do, expect challenge. Then expect to have to deal with the challenge - or don't dobit and stick to just talking about the weather.

Geddit? Just the weather.

So for someone who says to killfile is childish you prefer the straight-forward good old fashioned censorship. You have no power or authority over me, you are a jumped up little hitler . I'll say no more not because of you, but because this is just absolute madness and its not fair on the others, even I know when to stop on the odd occasion.

On Monday, 13 April 2015 20:13:15 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 13 April 2015 18:41:08 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
We know what your snide little post was about larry. As I said before *just* talk about the weather and no-one including me, would have any complaint.

The trouble is that you can't and you try to impose your far right wing, crappy and foul views at every possible opportunity in your posts. When you do, expect challenge. Then expect to have to deal with the challenge - or don't dobit and stick to just talking about the weather.

Geddit? Just the weather.

So for someone who says to killfile is childish you prefer the straight-forward good old fashioned censorship. You have no power or authority over me, you are a jumped up little hitler . I'll say no more not because of you, but because this is just absolute madness and its not fair on the others, even I know when to stop on the odd occasion.

Well, that was fun, wasn't it. Another thread ruined by Paul Garvey, USW's very own Cupid Stunt. I hope he's going to clear up the mess but as Alan Bennett would say, "he won't, will he". BTW, Lawrie, I'm not *very* leftish, just markedly and persistently so. Be fair! Don't be a Dawlish!

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.