Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

Alan!! Language! You're missing a 'o' somewhere in that word. You are a
decent innocent amongst this er... nonsense. What is going on between
Mike and Janet?! We must be told. Is this going back when this forum
started? I feel that anyone sympathising with Mike gets the 'Janet
treatment', you know the usual 'troll this troll that'. Deja vue for
most of us but dead boring and very very annoying. I don't dislike
Janet, just that she's got this thing in her head that anyone
responding to Mike must be a ... ennemy?! She did say so herself after
all. Also do we need to get an 'invitation' to stay around here beside
the 'newbies' as she call them or are we all doomed to be newbies?!
That is for the newbies?. (Hope you follow).

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

"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)

"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?

"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.....

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

"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.....


wood ? you mean wud lad
esezearntgorritburibereas
lerragerracotof
lerruzgerruzimbux
-just testing your credentials;-)

"Rupert" wrote in message
...

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.....


wood ? you mean wud lad
esezearntgorritburibereas
lerragerracotof
lerruzgerruzimbux
-just testing your credentials;-)
aye ba gum lad...tha is right....but if the truth be known then I am
interloper when I say I am a Yorkshireman.....born in Bishop Aukland and did
not start living in Yorkshire (York) until I was 5 days old....

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote in message
...

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.....


wood ? you mean wud lad
esezearntgorritburibereas
lerragerracotof
lerruzgerruzimbux
-just testing your credentials;-)
aye ba gum lad...tha is right....but if the truth be known then I am
interloper when I say I am a Yorkshireman.....born in Bishop Aukland and
did not start living in Yorkshire (York) until I was 5 days old....


An "off-cumden" is what you a-) all because your Mum wouldn't hold on
for a few days.

In article , Rupert
writes

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

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?


In plain language... he's just a stirring git

--
David