Aggression alive and well in urg still :-((

As ever :-((

Mike

--
--------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com


"shazzbat" wrote in message
...
SNIP

You've got some neck. You slag off me and others for suggesting that Bob's
post, whilst perfectly correct, could have been put more gently, and here
you are claiming that part of it which you can't even quote correctly
would
set 'anyone's' teeth on edge. So 10 out of 10 for tact and diplomacy for
you, I don't think. No part of Bob's post set my teeth on edge, and it's
not
for you to speak for all of us. You are beyond belief.

More snippage, especially your ludicrous tirade.



Steve

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...
SNIP

You've got some neck. You slag off me and others for suggesting that Bob's
post, whilst perfectly correct, could have been put more gently, and here
you are claiming that part of it which you can't even quote correctly
would
set 'anyone's' teeth on edge.

Not really, no. I'm not actually claiming that at all. (see below)

So 10 out of 10 for tact and diplomacy for you,

And 0 out of 10 for percepetiveness for you.

I don't think. No part of Bob's post set my teeth on edge,

Full marks there. Indeed it won't have set anyone's* teeth
on edge. One word , five letters, first letter "i". Or if you're
an American, seven letters, first letter "s".
* apart that is, from the exceptions detailed below.

The point was, that that was the next thing Bob was going to
be accused of, by someone or other. That was the intention of
the "clearly". That there are quite possibly lurkers out there
in cyberspace who eats nails for breakfast, who would be
the next to pipe up in direct opposition to the charges
which you have already been levelled against Bob's post.
In this case, that that introductory sentence simply wasn't
hard hitting enough. That it was much too "soft" and "fluffy"

The penny dropped yet, has it ?

....

and it's not
for you to speak for all of us.

....

I certainly wouldn't want to speak for you, or anyone else under
any circumstances.

In fact, least of all you. You can be certain of that.

....

You are beyond belief.

....

You're entitled to believe what you wish. Some people do believe
the strangest things.

....


More snippage, especially your ludicrous tirade.

....

There was no "ludicrous tirade". Just a straightforward question

So please don't think for one moment that you're simply going to
duck out of this with your head held high, as a result of failing
to see a joke.

Or perhaps that's the way you always conduct yourself in life is it?
By simply running way from things ?

You make these sniping, so-called "constructive criticisms" of yours
- not that we've actually seen any constructive suggestions of
course - from behind the safety of a hedge. And then try to run away.
- "More snippage" indeed - whenever you're called on them.

So here it is again. Part of this "ludicrous tirade" of mine, and the
question you ran away from.

How long more in your estimation will Bob need to spend in tidying up
this list of his ? To make it sound more friendly and unlikely to cause
any offence to anybody ? Another half hour perhaps, making an hour in
total. Or maybe another hour making it an hour and a half overall ?

And as matter of interest, given that you're clearly intent on offering
constructive criticism, what particular format do you think it would it
be best for Bob to adopt ? Do you think he should abandon the list
idea in the final draft and recast it into one long piece of
prose for instance ? More informal certainly, but potentially more
confusing. What do you think of that idea?

I don't really see how you can have any possible objection to
answering such simple questions. Do you? Given that, as you say,
your only intention was to offer a bit of "constructive criticism".
Because to be honest, its all been a bit negative and vague from
you up to now, I hope you'll agree.



michael adams

....











Steve

In reply to michael adams ) who wrote snip in
, I, Marvo, say :

Blimey, I thought the women were bad!

Uncle Marvo wrote:
Blimey, I thought the women were bad!

You know!!!! What did I tell you?! They're all wired and glad I'm not
in the middle of it. Poor Bob honestly - they all need a good dig, if
you ask me, just like the one I did on Sunday. I'm so pleased with the
results. I think I'll put up a photo soon.

Off to order some elephant garlic. Yes Uncle, this one's just fab for
roasting - fantastic with roast puds, carrots, parsnips ... Perhaps I
should eat something now before ....

grabs purse - runs out

"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to michael adams ) who wrote snip in
, I, Marvo, say :

Blimey, I thought the women were bad!

Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

Even it were the case that any of these criticisms were justified,
which in this case they were manifestly not, whether you happen to
like it or not "Uncle Marvo", the morale of the posters in any
NewsGroup who make the most valuable contributions, happens to be worth
far more to the continuance of that NewsGroup, than is any non-existent
offence that might have been caused to some hypothetical lurkers who
have yet to make their presence felt.

And as such, such valuable contributors deserve to be defended.

Of course you're totally free to post whatever material you wish
into unmoderated NewsGroups "Uncle Marvo", as you probably know.
However you'd probably do better sticking to what you appear to do
best. Which by all accounts, appears be flooding the NewsGroup with the
largely off-topic witterings of someone who it would seem, has rather
too much time on their hands.


michael adams

....

In reply to michael adams ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to michael adams ) who wrote snip in
, I, Marvo, say :

Blimey, I thought the women were bad!

Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

Even it were the case that any of these criticisms were justified,
which in this case they were manifestly not, whether you happen to
like it or not "Uncle Marvo", the morale of the posters in any
NewsGroup who make the most valuable contributions, happens to be
worth far more to the continuance of that NewsGroup, than is any
non-existent offence that might have been caused to some hypothetical
lurkers who have yet to make their presence felt.

And as such, such valuable contributors deserve to be defended.

Of course you're totally free to post whatever material you wish
into unmoderated NewsGroups "Uncle Marvo", as you probably know.
However you'd probably do better sticking to what you appear to do
best. Which by all accounts, appears be flooding the NewsGroup with
the largely off-topic witterings of someone who it would seem, has
rather too much time on their hands.

I'll go then

[sob]

michael adams wrote:
Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

You cockroach you. Uncle hasn't said one word in this thread to make
you talk to him in this way. You come into threads with your one liners
which usually are 100% off topic and always pointing your severe finger
at someone, archiving people's quote to vomit them later on as if you
were some sort of referee.

Who do you think you are talking to a nice chap like this? Uncle never
said a word about Bob. Why are you so detestable with him, suddenly?

In reply to La Puce ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

michael adams wrote:
Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

You cockroach you. Uncle hasn't said one word in this thread to make
you talk to him in this way. You come into threads with your one
liners which usually are 100% off topic and always pointing your
severe finger at someone, archiving people's quote to vomit them
later on as if you were some sort of referee.

Who do you think you are talking to a nice chap like this? Uncle never
said a word about Bob. Why are you so detestable with him, suddenly?

Thank you Ms Puce.

I'll go if most people want me to. There's democracy for you.

Oi! What do you mean, usually 100% off-topic?

:-)

Uncle Marvo wrote:
Thank you Ms Puce.

Quite a pleasure, actually. Now, come into another thread. It's far
more cozier than in here. I'll get a couple of cushions for you. See
you soon.

"La Puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

michael adams wrote:
Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

You cockroach you. Uncle hasn't said one word in this thread to make
you talk to him in this way.


Oh but he did. He questioned my defending Bob Hobden in the way
that I did.

Something that was nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Just as what I choose to post in response to your new, and by the
looks of things only, best friend, "Uncle Marvo" here, has got
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you.

hth


michael adams

....

"Uncle Marvo" wrote
In reply to michael adams ) who
the largely off-topic witterings of someone who it would seem, has
rather too much time on their hands.

I'll go then
[sob]

........off-topic witterings.............

Sometimes the best part of URG latley :~))
Jenny

In reply to michael adams ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

"La Puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

michael adams wrote:
Bob Hobden happens to make a very valuable contribution to this
Newsgroup. And as such, he is not deserving of having his posts
subject to innacurate and gratuitous criticism by the likes of the
Courageous Paul Corfield "Sweary Mary's" friend from the motorcycle
group, who has already run off. Or Shazzbat here, who also looks in
the process of doing likewise.

You cockroach you. Uncle hasn't said one word in this thread to make
you talk to him in this way.


Oh but he did. He questioned my defending Bob Hobden in the way
that I did.

No I didn't. [1]

Something that was nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Nor did I say it was.

Just as what I choose to post in response to your new, and by the
looks of things only, best friend, "Uncle Marvo" here, has got
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you.

I'm not her best friend, I'm Jenny's dog.

hth

HRH


michael adams

Uncle Marvo

[1] if I did, show me where I did, because I didn't mean to. And who's Bob?