"Rupert" wrote in message
...

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

"La puce" wrote in message
ups.com...

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us
have our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them for
what they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it
is'....a lot of the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the
type...."well, the type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a
specific answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am no
longer asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts and in
many many case are not what the asker really wishes to hear....so, to
Mike and all those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and speak the truth as
they know it to be then .........please, pretty please do not
change....it is those that revile the truth sayers that should
'reconsider'......live and let live sayeth I......a Yorkshireman (still)

O.K a fellow Yorkshireman agrees with the sentiment of your post, however,
there are limits to plain speaking .
If someone constantly makes vitriolic comments for no particular reason
then that's just plain stupid and daft.
In the case of "Mike" -he makes racist, homophobic and totally puerile
comments both on this newsgroup and others.
On occasions he does make a sensible contribution but that's a very rare
event.
I think it may have been in this newsgroup "I wished him dead".
Is that plain enough?

Plain enough fellow Yorkshireman......plus.....also in my belief there is no
room for vitriolic comments that are unwarrented...."plain, stupid and daft"
are not exactly the words I wood use but in respect for this site will not
use.....