🚀 go-pugleaf

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet
> >
> > What a load of crapola.
>
> All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
> see that my comments were both true and accurate.

Nope. You are still full of crap.
Why do *you* get to say what's "vandalism" and what's "irrelevant"?
I say all those quotes full of insults are relevant, interesting and
even sometimes amusing.

> > I bet you use an apple-mac.
>
> Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?

I bet you wish you had an apple-mac then. Did that Thai bar-girl dose
you up with Rohypnol and steal your Apple-mac?

> I thsnk you for having admitted your guilt in this matter.  It should
> make it so much easier for Laurence to "sue your sorry ass" (as some
> colonials are given to say).

Are they? What a horrid turn of phrase. What kind of people did you
have to rub shoulders with to pick that one up? Is this something to
do with those pox-ridden Thai bargirls again?

> As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> applies to you,

Why is it obvious?  Why would we believe you even know the difference,
considering your rubbing of shoulders with foul-mouthed illiterate
colonials?

> you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
> one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.

Why would it hurt anybody? Are you saying comments denigratory of Thai
bargirls are something to be ashamed of?

I suppose even admitting that one hangs around with sluts might be
considered somewhat shameful...however most people would make
allowances for those who are exceptionally ugly.
Is that a defence you would consider?

> > Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
> > individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
> > Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?
>
> He may or he may not.

Sitting on the fence, huh?
A bit like that retard Neville Chamberlain who tried to help you lose
to the Nazis - shame you were left with such a depleted gene-pool
after having shipped off so much of your good human stock to the
colonies, eh?
Maybe you could ask Jade Goody for her opinion?

> Readers of your nonsense may soon begin to
> dislike you and/or wonder if you might be a "retard".

Readers of your nonsense on the other hand can avoid any such
uncertainty.

> No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
> that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

The link you posted concludes with:

"With regard to the Defendants' application to amend the Defence I
make no definitive ruling but indicate that it is likely to succeed."

"It may also be helpful to suggest that on the basis of the proposed
Amended Defence any award of damages to the Plaintiff is likely to be
very small."

And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
guys are lying http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
 and you just haven't got around to "suing their arses"(sorry, unlike
you I just can't bring myself to perpetrate atrocious misspellings,
even in quoting) yet to make them take their site off the internet.