Gloria wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:47:38 GMT, "anonym" wrote:


"Gloria" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Stalker.

Oh I love to love, but my baby just wants to dance.....

Why are you posting this in demon.local?

Stop... etc... etc...

You have been warned.

The clock is ticking!


I have a copied book, on a book of grebes, would you like it to while
away the hours?

Don't think you can just come in here and up-turn the cart of just anyone's
sensibilities.

Malcolm is, er, a gifted individual.

Gloria wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:46:38 GMT, "anonym" wrote:


"@@^" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

You should contact the demon legal crack team! They are very good and they
even shut that Paul Rooney up when Chrith Hill threatened to post his proof.
They should be able to take your case unless Ogilvie has cornered the
*******s.

Ah well I remember Sir Rooney. Never thought he was a runner, still I
suppose it depends what Ogilvie the pedant was chasing him with!

Various writs, we all presume.