On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:52:54 GMT, Paul Cummins
wrote:
In article ,
(Mike Pellatt) wrote:

"nearly" prosecuted ?? That's a bit like being "almost" pregnant
isn't it ?? You're either prosecuted or not prosecuted. Preganant
or not pregnant. No space in between.

No, he was formally warned that if he continued his actions he would be
prosecuted.

So he wasn't prosecuted then.

You might like to consider the implications of accepting a
formal warning, too.

--
Mike Pellatt

Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mike Bristow) wrote:

I feel that you have distorted the facts of the matter.

This is exactly as he described the matter to me.

As I feel
that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you as soon
as Clive's name comes up I'll leave it there.

He was the one that cast the first stone - despite his own 'sin'

Stop being childish. You gave some patently inaccurate facts. Clive
pointed this out, as I did. If you want to try to take the moral high
ground, perhaps you should stop confusing Outlook Express users by
deliberately exploiting a bug in OE in every post you make.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

If you want to try to take the moral high
ground, perhaps you should stop confusing Outlook Express users by
deliberately exploiting a bug in OE in every post you make.

I'm not exploiting anything - if I were, I'd already have access to
their machines using that feature.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...

Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

If you want to try to take the moral high
ground, perhaps you should stop confusing Outlook Express users by
deliberately exploiting a bug in OE in every post you make.

I'm not exploiting anything - if I were, I'd already have access to
their machines using that feature.

Not exploiting it? So you gain no sort of satisfaction from your behaviour?
So why do it? It certainly doesn't benefit anyone else.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

So why do it? It certainly doesn't benefit anyone else.

Does it do any harm?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...

In article m, Paul
Cummins writes
Cummins accuracy strikes again.
This from the man who WAGN nearly prosecuted for ticket fraud!

Cummins accuracy strikes again.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article m, Paul
Cummins writes
No, he was formally warned that if he continued his actions he would be
prosecuted.

Wrong again. Three in a row.

Basically he thought it was fair and reasonable to travel from Cambridge
to London on a "Finsbury Park to London Stations" season ticket - simply
because of a misprint in an official document.

Wrong for fourth and fifth times. No "misprint" and no "reasonable".

Oh, and "London Stations" is wrong as well. As is Cambridge to London.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address