Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 29 October 2007 08:16 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 27 October 2007 09:59 : \____
>>>
>>>> Sophie McDowell <sophie@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kier" <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2007.10.25.12.17.42.909278@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>>>>>>> their P.45s?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the
>>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> too real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Roy's failure to answer this simple question noted.
>>>
>>> My previous message explains just why.
>>>
>>>> Gary, even my little sister only changed her name once when she was 12
>>>> or 13. You seem to do it several times a week. Get help, please?
>>>
>>> He already did. He's seeing a professional, but progress is evidently too
>>> slow.
>>>
>>
>> Is he? Good for him. I sincerely hope it helps; his current state of
>> mind is clearly not good.
>>
>> I imagine that it could take some time to achieve a recovery, though.
>> Perhaps we could at least encourage him to post under his own name?
>> Maybe even some on-topic, non-anti-charter material?
>
> He'd better not actually. If he stopped posting from open relays (zombies), it
> would be easier for people to sue him for libel, having gone through it all
> these years. As for him name, it's already known and there's too much proof
> for him to deny it.
There's no point suing people who have no money. I don't think our Gary
would be worth the effort in that respect.
>
> Good luck with the shrink, Gary Stewart. I heard it's a female, so there's no
> danger of you having lust for her.
>
It's hard to say; if he's quite schizophrenic, he might do at times,
depending on "who" is in charge at the time. If he's merely
sociopathic, then perhaps not.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
