🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike" <du@b> wrote in message
news:ipbc1voj0s2f1dvi92ppi9rd9bscn2lrc4@news.clara.net...
> Grint, wrote...
>
> >
> >"Chris" <see@reply.to.field> wrote in message
> >news:1041622839.71284.0@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
> >> In article <av4nsf$alh$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, mh-
> >> ng@hunterstonenospam.fsnet.com.uk says...
> >> : The whole thing could have been cleared up between ourselves
> >> : without the need to involve FS, but you never gave me the chance that
> >you
> >> : promised me.
> >> :
> >> Sorry that you feel this way.  As I said to Grint, I _had_ to make
> >> Freeserve aware of the post.  I was obliged to had I later wanted to
> >> pursue the comments, legally, further.  That is the only reason I
> >> notified Freeserve.
> >>
> >> For my part this is no hard feelings over this and am glad you feel
> >> similar.
> >
> >So honouring your offer of 48 hours would have weakened your position?
>
> He didn't want a strong position, he wanted the post removed.
>
> > No it
> >would not at the end of the day it would have strengthened your case by
> >showing that you had been reasonable in giving Mike H time to retract
>
> He didn't want a "case", he wanted the post removed.
>
> >failure to do so and taking legal action without giving reasonable
> >opportunity to avoid court action would have been viewed as ?
>
> The post was removed, which in turn avoided court action.
>
> >What's the
> >word Chris tell us?
>
> That you are a dumb fuck.
>
> > And what view do courts take on that kind of action?
>
> None, regrettably, but I vote for sterilization.

Mike you're a silly Cunt. Mike would have cancelled that post and asked
freeserve to remove it given the chance but he was not.