Clarkson pie-eyed

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:35:11 +0100, Bertie Wiggins
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:36:16 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>>
>>>I don't believe that to be true.
>>
>>Do you know what happened because you were there ?
>
>I was careful in my wording to express an opinion rather than a
>statement of fact.

But it was a f*cking stupid point to bring up.

The original reference to Huntley was to illustrate how context can
affect our view of child-killers., not on paedophile techniques.

Surely Millbank brainwashing isn't so thorough that it throws up these
'kamikaze' posters,destroying their credibility in a vain attmpt to
protect the leader's image.
At least that' what I'd like to think prompted your ill-judged reply.

> I know few facts, but I did follow press reports
>of the investigation and trial.
>>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>>
>>Why are you defending Huntley ?
>
>I am not defending him. I am simply making a point that the culprit
>was not a stranger to his victims and did not *lure* them

Are you actually aware of what the term 'lure' means ?

You seem to believe that,as in the case of 'grooming',that the word
has been 'fence-ringed' for exclusive use to describe paedophile
activity.

You are,of course,wrong.

Perhaps you would like to go the numerous fishing newsgroups and
educate them on the true sense of the word 'lure'.
I'm sure they'd love your input.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> So you couldn't comment on whether the Commander-In-Chief of the
>> British Armed Forces is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children
>> killed by R.A.F. bombs ?
>
>The Queen is responsible?

If she pays them,picks the CoS and tells them who/where to fight then
yes,she would be.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:35:42 +0100, Antony Gelberg
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>> Ha Ha Ha, admission of defeat !
>
>Only a troll would be talking about defeat. I didn't know there was a
>battle.


I think that last one proves it.

 

[Nobody Here]

The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 07:58:23 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:35:19 +0100, Bertie Wiggins
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:35:56 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe that to be true.
>>>
>>> Do you know what happened because you were there ?
>>>
>>> Are you a member of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary masonic paedophile
>>> ring alleged to be the true culprits ?
>>>
>>>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>>>
>>> Why are you defending Huntley ?
>>>
>>> Do you believe that the 'little minxes' deserved their fate ?
>>>
>>> What kind of sad ******* are you to throw this twisted ******** into a
>>> debate ???
>>
>>D'y'know I was reading some of your other posts and more and more
>>I've been gettingthe feeling that you're a little lacking in the
>>conprehension stakes. This one confirms it.
>
> Then why come in at this point and not the more difficult ones ?
> Perhaps the subject of 'nonces' is the only one you feel qualified to
> address,no doubt thanks to your subscription to The Sun or some other
> tabloid 'Pavlov'.
>
>>
>>The clearly obvious point that he was making was not that he was
>>defending Huntley at all,
>
> Then why does he object to the claim that Huntley "lured" the 2 girls
> to their deaths ?
> You must be as mentally-challenged as him.Why would anyone want to
> dive in to a discussion about 'hate-crimes' with some half-arsed
> paedophile conspiracy nonsense.
>
> Once again,a basic lack of dictionaries has led to a number of posters
> here embarassing themselves.
> Perhaps you could find a dictionary and see its definition.
>
> Luring does not necessarily equate to force or subterfuge.Consent of
> the 'luree' is not an issue.
> The only person who has claimed that the Holly and Jessica wanted to
> use the bathroom is Huntley himself.
>
> Do you believe a serial sex-offender ?
>
>
>>but that like in many of these cases
>>the children were killed by someone they knew and trusted. He
>>didn't have to lure them anywhere, they apparently went willingly.
>>Very few children are killed or abused by strangers, most of that
>>sort of crime is at the hnads of family members, and there is
>>no "luring" involved.
>>
>>I assume he knew that because he took some notice of what was said
>>at the time. Something you might think about doing.
>
> You are probably a decent bloke,I couldn't say,but to
> leap to the defence of a poster who posts such crass and insensitive
> nonsense betrays your character.
>
> The fact that you can't grasp cogent argument also tends to suggest
> some form of intellectual impairment
>
> Would you like to throw in something about Sidney Cook at this point ?

Nothing in what you wrote up there bore the slightest relationshsip to
anything I wrote. I guess you can't see that, becuase it's set same as
the **** you post in "response" to others.

Are you ****** or summant? Cos if you're sober your not the brightest
spark in the class, are you! I guess that's explaine the chip on your
shoulder though ;-)

--
Nobby

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:55:08 +0100, Phil Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>> I honestly believe some posters here suffer from a form of dyslexia -
>> that's not a cheap and tasteless crack,but a genuine observation.
>
>brought up by a single mis-spelling? OK ...
>
>
>> As you have failed to do so its obvious it this comparison doesn't
>exist.
>
>inconsistent punctuation, and a stray "it".
>
>>>>Still,its good to know that those G.C.S.E.'s you sat haven't
>
>inconsistent punctuation again.
>
>3 mistakes does not make you dyslexic. Nor is dyslexia anything to be
>ashamed of.
>
>we all make smelling pistakes, let's accept that & keep the debate relevant.
>
>Phil

If your knowledge of dyslexia was deeper than the Sunday Sport
definition you subscribe to,then you woul know that it is more than
mispelling words or confusing word-order but also afflicts the
interpretation of sentences.

Posters in this group apparently seize upon one word or phrase in a
thread and then (mistakenly)run off on a different tangent,resulting
in pointlessly long subjects,such as "Clarkson pie-eyed".

The hysteria that greeted the assertion,no that should be fact,that
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist proves this.

That is why a referrence to dyslexia,physiological or psychological
,is relevant to this thread.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:29 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Also sprach The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:24:56 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Also sprach The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> e.g. Ian Huntley was convicted of killing 2 children.He is evil.
>>>>
>>>> Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of Iragi children living
>>>> near Sadam's palaces and suspected bunkers.However,he is not evil.
>>>
>>> /You/ might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
>>
>> So you couldn't comment on whether the Commander-In-Chief of the
>> British Armed Forces is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children
>> killed by R.A.F. bombs ?
>>
>> What a strange person.
>
>Perhaps if you spent a little more time in pursuit of what our Colonial
>Cousins quaintly call "Book-learning"

what a charming phrase - "Colonial Cousins"

>, you might recognise the above as
>Francis Urquhart's "mantra of hypocrisy" in "House Of Cards" by Michael
>Dobbs.



So your intellect is honed by crappy paperback fiction then ?

That put me in my place ! (that was sarcasm,dear boy)

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On 16 Sep 2005 17:30:55 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2005 07:58:23 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:35:19 +0100, Bertie Wiggins
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:35:56 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe that to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what happened because you were there ?
>>>>
>>>> Are you a member of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary masonic paedophile
>>>> ring alleged to be the true culprits ?
>>>>
>>>>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>>>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>>>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>>>>
>>>> Why are you defending Huntley ?
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that the 'little minxes' deserved their fate ?
>>>>
>>>> What kind of sad ******* are you to throw this twisted ******** into a
>>>> debate ???
>>>
>>>D'y'know I was reading some of your other posts and more and more
>>>I've been gettingthe feeling that you're a little lacking in the
>>>conprehension stakes. This one confirms it.
>>
>> Then why come in at this point and not the more difficult ones ?
>> Perhaps the subject of 'nonces' is the only one you feel qualified to
>> address,no doubt thanks to your subscription to The Sun or some other
>> tabloid 'Pavlov'.
>>
>>>
>>>The clearly obvious point that he was making was not that he was
>>>defending Huntley at all,
>>
>> Then why does he object to the claim that Huntley "lured" the 2 girls
>> to their deaths ?
>> You must be as mentally-challenged as him.Why would anyone want to
>> dive in to a discussion about 'hate-crimes' with some half-arsed
>> paedophile conspiracy nonsense.
>>
>> Once again,a basic lack of dictionaries has led to a number of posters
>> here embarassing themselves.
>> Perhaps you could find a dictionary and see its definition.
>>
>> Luring does not necessarily equate to force or subterfuge.Consent of
>> the 'luree' is not an issue.
>> The only person who has claimed that the Holly and Jessica wanted to
>> use the bathroom is Huntley himself.
>>
>> Do you believe a serial sex-offender ?
>>
>>
>>>but that like in many of these cases
>>>the children were killed by someone they knew and trusted. He
>>>didn't have to lure them anywhere, they apparently went willingly.
>>>Very few children are killed or abused by strangers, most of that
>>>sort of crime is at the hnads of family members, and there is
>>>no "luring" involved.
>>>
>>>I assume he knew that because he took some notice of what was said
>>>at the time. Something you might think about doing.
>>
>> You are probably a decent bloke,I couldn't say,but to
>> leap to the defence of a poster who posts such crass and insensitive
>> nonsense betrays your character.
>>
>> The fact that you can't grasp cogent argument also tends to suggest
>> some form of intellectual impairment
>>
>> Would you like to throw in something about Sidney Cook at this point ?
>
>Nothing in what you wrote up there bore the slightest relationshsip to
>anything I wrote. I guess you can't see that, becuase it's set same as
>the **** you post in "response" to others.
>
>Are you ****** or summant? Cos if you're sober your not the brightest
>spark in the class, are you! I guess that's explaine the chip on your
>shoulder though ;-)

So you have to resort to abuse because you can't answer my reply to
your post.

How sad.

Your reply to my post in the "Critical Mass" message was similarly
devoid of relevant argument.

Guess your a "Nobody" by nature too.

 

[Phil Clarke]

The Nottingham Duck wrote:

> If your knowledge of dyslexia was deeper than the
> Sunday Sport definition you subscribe to ...

OK, somehow everyone on the newsgroup is wrong and you're right, across
all threads. Not just that, you can understand people's knowledge and
viewpoint from a few disjoint posts. Im impressed.

> dyslexia, physiological or psychological ...

psychological huh?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:25:16 GMT, the person
known to the court as Mark Thompson
<[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>> Curious. Why should I object if the Welsh want their country back,
>> any more than I would object to the Palestinians wanting the illegal
>> occupation of their land to end?

>You've misunderstood. He wants to know how you'd react if the Welsh wanted
>to drive you out of your country and so they could have it all to
>themselves.

I guess I'd react much as the Palestinians have when the Israelis
tried it, but I still can't quite see why he said it!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:36:40 +0100, the person
known to the court as Antony Gelberg <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>> Curious. Why should I object if the Welsh want their country back,
>> any more than I would object to the Palestinians wanting the illegal
>> occupation of their land to end?

>I didn't say "want their country back", I said "drive you [the English]
>into the sea".

In which case I'd react much as the Palestinians have in the face of
similar action from Israel. Why do you ask?

>It's not for me to tell you what to object to. Your heart will tell you
>what is right and what is wrong. And let's face it, a Usenet post never
>changed anyone's opinion.

False. Look at the history of helmet wars in urc.

>I'm not sure why you think it's "their land", though.

Something to do with their being there first, and Israel being as much
an arbitrary construct as Belgium or Czechoslovakia.

>It is annoying that ill-informed, although I have no doubt, well-meaning
>people, feel the need to commentate on things that they don't understand
>fully. It's very frustrating. At least _try_ to understand both sides
>of the story.

I have. And as a result I have come to the conclusion that the
Israeli people are, by and large, "just folks", but that there is a
coterie of zealots who have a disproportionate influence. I am very
glad that limited withdrawal is taking place, though. That represents
almost as big a step as the Irish cease-fires, and hopefully more will
come from it.

>One of the best things I ever learnt was from a friend
>who read the Times _and_ the Guardian. Understand that the BBC may
>actually be taking a position. Read www.mfa.gov.il, or www.haaretz.com.

As a regular reader of Private Eye (which has its own agenda of
course) I would never expect otherwise.

>I don't want to repeat myself, but feel free to have a look at my post
>of 10:23 this morning. Nobody responded. Nobody ever does to posts
>like that. It's the usual shoe-gazing. It's very frustrating.

Why? It was a piece of pointless navel-gazing, as far as I can tell,
and not demanding of any particular response. I already read the Eye,
so no advertisement is necessary.

>I'm not saying that one side is right and one is wrong, but one side
>gets an infinte amount more leeway and sympathy in the media, which is
>what tends to form all of our opinions on impersonal matters.

You are missing the point. This is not about whether the Palestinians
or the Israelis get sympathy on British TV, but about America's
pretext for invading Iraq. They claimed that violation of UN
resolutions was that justification. Israel has been violating UN
resolutions for decades (as has Turkey). Zimbabwe has a markedly more
corrupt government than Iraq. Why is the US not invading Israel,
Turkey or Zimbabwe? Many of us think the answer lies in the soil. Or
rather, some millennia-dead vegetation underneath it.

Your seizing on the Israel issue looks suspiciously like paranoia.

>Again, it's easy to be mount a right-on high horse when none of your
>friends or relatives have been murdered. You're lucky. The Scottish
>and Welsh are civilised enough to make their points without killing
>civilians.

But the Irish were not. And neither are the Americans, when it comes
to it. Not that this has changed much: one of my distant ancestors
was hanged as a spy during the American civil war (it's even
commemorated by a statue in a State Park in New York).

>Take a trip to Israel. You might find that it's actually not full of
>Nazis.

I'd be amazed if it was. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, for example, is
not noted for its tolerance for such individuals. Thank you, however,
for Godwinating the thread.

>You might find that it's full of normal people trying to get on
>with their normal lives. You might find a sizable community of Arabs
>who live there out of choice. Women are equal. They can drive, vote,
>live. (Just don't walk into the wrong shopping centre or coffee shop at
>the wrong time.)

I know.

>There are many charity bike rides there actually, if that's any
>incentive.

No. I prefer to pay for my own holidays and donate money to charity
separately.

>Where is it written that the UN is correct about anything? As the years
>go by, it is being hijacked more and more. Take a look at the
>demographic of the member countries. Fortunately, I think that it's
>almost self-destructed in an orgy of vitrol and corruption.

Really? It seems to me that the refusal to grant America permission
to invade Iraq rather demonstrated the opposite.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:40:14 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

>>, you might recognise the above as
>>Francis Urquhart's "mantra of hypocrisy" in "House Of Cards" by Michael
>>Dobbs.

>So your intellect is honed by crappy paperback fiction then ?

No, by astute, well-informed (and at the time of televisation)
absolutely compelling political satire. Iain Richardson's Urquhart
was marvellously twisted and venal.

As they say in The Shed, "It was a cultural reference to the
wireless-with-pictures, m'lud"

I recommend an urgent review here:
http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/humor.html

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:36:16 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths
>>>I don't believe that to be true.
[...]
>>>It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
>>>his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
>>>approach to fulfill his perverted desires.
>>>
>>Why are you defending Huntley ?
>
>I am not defending him. I am simply making a point that the culprit
>was not a stranger to his victims and did not *lure* them

You can lure a non-stranger. That they may have initially approached
Huntley doesn't rule out him them luring them into the house where
they were killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3312551.stm
"Huntley said Holly died after falling into his bath, and he killed
Jessica by putting his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming.
But the prosecution laid out an alternative version of events - that
Huntley lured Holly and Jessica into his house"

Are you claiming to know better than the jury?


>believe the real danger - friends and relatives.

Excluded middle. I don't think Huntley was close enough to count as
a friend, merely not a stranger. (I live in the village next to Soham,
so saw local news coverage as well as national.)

 

[David Nutter]

On 2005-09-16, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Nutter wrote:
> [...]
>> Alas, you then put that control into the hands of a moron behind a keyboard,
>> several months ago.
>>
>> *scuttles away to hide from mob of angry software engineers*
>
> As a software engineer I always blame the customer. They wrote the
> requirements.

In the case of UK ATC, if only that were true. The contractors created a
brand new system that took virtually no inspiration from the existing working
practices of controllers. Result: one big expensive cockup.

Allegedly I'm a software engineer, but since my PhD focus is on developing
an awareness tool for a bunch of distributed programers I hardly flatter
myself with the title.

Regards,

-david

 

[Nobody Here]

Phil Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>> If your knowledge of dyslexia was deeper than the
> > Sunday Sport definition you subscribe to ...
>
> OK, somehow everyone on the newsgroup is wrong and you're right, across
> all threads. Not just that, you can understand people's knowledge and
> viewpoint from a few disjoint posts. Im impressed.

It's the drugs, they make everything clear to him.


--
Nobby

 

[Phil Clarke]

David Nutter wrote:

> Allegedly I'm a software engineer, but since my PhD focus is on
> developing an awareness tool for a bunch of distributed programers
> ...

sounds good, want one. How's it going? Sounds very cross-discipline,
which is (a) how it should be (b) brave, when you could stick to what's
easy.

Phil
software engineer, interested in psychology, human interaction (or lack
thereof) & user experience

 

[Tony Raven]

David Nutter wrote:
>
> Allegedly I'm a software engineer, but since my PhD focus is on developing
> an awareness tool for a bunch of distributed programers I hardly flatter
> myself with the title.
>

I remember having one of those at University in the early days of
computing. The ring network in those days had a physical token. If you
wanted to send through the network you put your hand up as an awareness
tool and whichever of the bunch of programmers distributed around the
room had the token passed it to you when they were finished with it and
you could then hit send. Later the token passing became automated into
the Token and Cambridge Ring networks.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:26:11 +0100, Phil Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>> If your knowledge of dyslexia was deeper than the
> > Sunday Sport definition you subscribe to ...
>
>OK, somehow everyone on the newsgroup is wrong and you're right, across
>all threads. Not just that, you can understand people's knowledge and
>viewpoint from a few disjoint posts. Im impressed.
>
> > dyslexia, physiological or psychological ...
>
>psychological huh?

Yes.You have betrayed your ignorance of the condition by failing to
counter my point with any contrary medical data.
Stick to the Sport,son.Its got boobies in it !

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On 16 Sep 2005 21:46:52 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Phil Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>>
>>> If your knowledge of dyslexia was deeper than the
>> > Sunday Sport definition you subscribe to ...
>>
>> OK, somehow everyone on the newsgroup is wrong and you're right, across
>> all threads. Not just that, you can understand people's knowledge and
>> viewpoint from a few disjoint posts. Im impressed.
>
>It's the drugs, they make everything clear to him.

I'd rather be a druggie than a paedophile.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:58:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:40:14 +0100, the person
>known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
><[email protected]> made a statement
>(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
>to the following effect:
>
>>>, you might recognise the above as
>>>Francis Urquhart's "mantra of hypocrisy" in "House Of Cards" by Michael
>>>Dobbs.
>
>>So your intellect is honed by crappy paperback fiction then ?
>
>No, by astute, well-informed (and at the time of televisation)
>absolutely compelling political satire. Iain Richardson's Urquhart
>was marvellously twisted and venal.
>
>As they say in The Shed, "It was a cultural reference to the
>wireless-with-pictures, m'lud"
>
>I recommend an urgent review here:
>http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/humor.html
>
>Guy


But fiction,nonetheless.

 

[Phil Clarke]

The Nottingham Duck wrote:

>>>dyslexia, physiological or psychological ...
>>
>>psychological huh?
>
> Yes.You have betrayed your ignorance of the condition by
> failing to counter my point with any contrary medical data.

ho hum. By that logic youve betrayed yours by not answering my point,
unless a "yes" from you constitutes data.

Dyslexia is neurological. You can get away with calling that
physiological, and you can argue that anyone has psychological needs &
conditions attached to any illness - indeed psychology is used in
diagnosis & treatment.

But "dyslexia, physiological or psychological" isnt a "I understand
this" phrase.

Im very well read & experienced in this field for a non medical
practicioner, but doubtless you can find something I dont know with a
quick Google which will prove your superiority.


> Stick to the Sport,son.Its got boobies in it !

I prefer uk.rec.cycling. Its got a few amusing tw*ts in it.