«

On 2/18/2013 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> John Turco <> wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 6:14 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 3:33:07 AM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>>>>> doesn't matter. You're an outlaw. Laws don't apply to you.
>>>>> And you should be dealt with as such. Too bad we're to
>>>>> civilized to lock you into a kennel.
>
>>>> I'm not
>
>>> What, an outlaw? You'd be one during the Prohibition ...
>
>> No, he wouldn't; "Whisky-dave" is in Britain.
>
> When we travel backwards in time, we can't travel in space,
> not even in the years following the event?
>
> -Wolfgang


Naturally, we can! There's no legal limit to the number
of impossibilities allowed, I'd imagine.

(One of my personal fantasies, involves "Whisky-dave"
actually proofreading his posts...)

John

On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:14:20 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > On Friday, February 8, 2013 3:33:07 AM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> doesn't matter. You're an outlaw. Laws don't apply to you.
>
> >> >> And you should be dealt with as such. Too bad we're to
>
> >> >> civilized to lock you into a kennel.
>
>
>
> >> > I'm not
>
>
>
> >> What, an outlaw? You'd be one during the Prohibition ...
>
>
>
> > No I wouldn't becase we wouldn't do something as stupid as that in the UK
>
>
>
> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?

Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law , there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.
Mind you I'd rather be him than a bloke called Will on a battlefield.



>
>
>
> -Wolfgang

Whisky-dave <> wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?

> Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,

So you don't drive?

> there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.

It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.

-Wolfgang

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>
>
> >> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?
>
>
>
> > Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,
>
>
>
> So you don't drive?

No, haven't a car or a driving licence.


>
> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.
>
>
>
> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>
> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.

I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.

As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.

Whisky-dave <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:

>> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> >> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?

>> > Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,

>> So you don't drive?

> No, haven't a car or a driving licence.

That's a relief.


>> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.

>> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.

> I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.

'free *political* speech', yes, and try 'free speech' by
shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for the classic example.

Libel is not excused by 'free speech'.

> As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.

Immediately obvious are various crimes against ortography.
They tend to hide the pointless rambling.

-Wolfgang

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?
>
>
>
> >> > Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,
>
>
>
> >> So you don't drive?
>
>
>
> > No, haven't a car or a driving licence.
>
>
>
> That's a relief.

So what was your point again ?



> >> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.
>
>
>
> >> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>
> >> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.
>
>
>
> > I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.
>
>
>
> 'free *political* speech', yes, and try 'free speech' by
>
> shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for the classic example.

Nothing wrong with shouting fire in a crowded theatre if there's a fire.


> Libel is not excused by 'free speech'.

I didn;t say it was, so again what point are you making ?


> > As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.
>
>
>
> Immediately obvious are various crimes against ortography.

Such as what ?


>
> They tend to hide the pointless rambling.

They haven't hid your post, so they aren;t exactly powerful are they.

Now what was yuor original point again, about not posting when drunk, are you drunk as you're not making much sense if you're posting sober.

Whisky-dave <> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>
>> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,
>>
>>
>>
>> >> So you don't drive?
>>
>>
>>
>> > No, haven't a car or a driving licence.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a relief.

> So what was your point again ?

That alcohol and driving or posting does not go well together.

What is the point of your spurious newlines all over the
posting?


>> >> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>>
>> >> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.
>>
>>
>>
>> 'free *political* speech', yes, and try 'free speech' by
>>
>> shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for the classic example.

> Nothing wrong with shouting fire in a crowded theatre if there's a fire.

Arson is wrong, too.


>> Libel is not excused by 'free speech'.

> I didn;t say it was, so again what point are you making ?

Tell me what was the point of your "I have, ask them about
free speech, it's not for sale apparently."?


>> > As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.
>>
>>
>>
>> Immediately obvious are various crimes against ortography.

> Such as what ?

"emotainal", "cover yuotr eyes", "informatiin", "unimaotional
peolpe", "Unimotional people", "unimotianl people",
"fuctashima reactor", "wheich wione they prefer", "I ndon;t",
"kill hiumans", "minuites", "Hukans", "it's hardly relivant",
"TYhe earlist life on teh plante", "stronhg", "loko closely",
"don;t lok", "that isnteh reason", "relible", "buyiong",
"interchangalbe", "remmeber", and the constant use of ";"
when a "'" should be used, like in "didn;t".

Though I must admit you recently got better.

>> They tend to hide the pointless rambling.

> They haven't hid your post, so they aren;t exactly powerful are they.

My spelling isn't even on the same continent of "bad" as yours
is at times.

> Now what was yuor original point again, about not posting when drunk, are you drunk as you're not making much sense if you're posting sober.

Whisky-dave, you have been aptly named.

-Wolfgang

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:04:31 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselbergwrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselbergwrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > Drunk driving is not OK according to UK law ,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> So you don't drive?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > No, haven't a car or a driving licence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's a relief.
>
>
>
> > So what was your point again ?
>
>
>
> That alcohol and driving or posting does not go well together.

But you said....
"So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?"

I said I know drunk driving is not OK, but I wasn;t aware drunk posting wasnot OK. As far as I know there is no law against drunk posting, but thre is one aginst drunk driving.
You then brought up libel which has nothing to do with drink, in fact you're more likely to get away with libel if you are drunk.

> What is the point of your spurious newlines all over the
>
> posting?

To seperate the individual points as you seem to think that there's a link between drunk driving and drunk posting....


> >> >> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.
>

> >> >> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.
>
> >> > I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.
>
> >> 'free *political* speech', yes, and try 'free speech' by
>
> >>
>
> >> shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for the classic example.
>
>
>
> > Nothing wrong with shouting fire in a crowded theatre if there's a fire..
>
>
>
> Arson is wrong, too.

Yes it is, but warning people that there is a fire is NOT wrong.

Being labeled a fire marshall here, I do have to shout at students[1] to get out when the fire alarm sounds, nothing illegal in that.


[1] and others including a secettary who was "just going to teh toilet during the fire alarm as she didn't want to leave the building 'wanting to go to the loo'.


> >> Libel is not excused by 'free speech'.
>
>
>
> > I didn;t say it was, so again what point are you making ?
>
>
>
> Tell me what was the point of your "I have, ask them about
>
> free speech, it's not for sale apparently."?

You seme to imply that there was a 'cost' in warning people of fire.
I klnow on the underground theres is a cost to using the 'pull cord' to stop the train think it's about £50 but only if you use without good reason.


> >> > As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.
>
> >> Immediately obvious are various crimes against ortography.
>
>
>
> > Such as what ?
>
>
>
> "emotainal", "cover yuotr eyes", "informatiin", "unimaotional
>
> peolpe", "Unimotional people", "unimotianl people",
>
> "fuctashima reactor", "wheich wione they prefer", "I ndon;t",
>
> "kill hiumans", "minuites", "Hukans", "it's hardly relivant",
>
> "TYhe earlist life on teh plante", "stronhg", "loko closely",
>
> "don;t lok", "that isnteh reason", "relible", "buyiong",
>
> "interchangalbe", "remmeber", and the constant use of ";"
>
> when a "'" should be used, like in "didn;t".
>

So what are the sentances for these crimes ?

>
> Though I must admit you recently got better.
>
>
>
> >> They tend to hide the pointless rambling.
>
>
>
> > They haven't hid your post, so they aren;t exactly powerful are they.
>
>
>
> My spelling isn't even on the same continent of "bad" as yours
>
> is at times.

Most are typo's .

In fact while typing this I'm watching a student flattening a piece of aluminium with a pair of tin snipps....


Now I've handed him a small hammer and a piece of wood.



> > Now what was yuor original point again, about not posting when drunk, are you drunk as you're not making much sense if you're posting sober.
>
>
>
> Whisky-dave, you have been aptly named.

How would you know that, well there's two people that called me whisky-davegoing back 20+ years, but not because I got drunk on whisky, but because Ididn't.

Whisky-dave <> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:04:31 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>
>> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

For heaven's sake! Are you too darn stupid or too darn drunk
to fix your sorry excuse for a newsreader, or do you believe
because you use Google to post you're allowed to trample over
*all* conventions?

Don't you see all the empty lines you have produced?


>> > So what was your point again ?

>> That alcohol and driving or posting does not go well together.

> But you said....
> "So drunk driving and drunk posting is OK?"

Yes, I did. I wondered if you were addled enough to believe
they fit together like a hand in a glove.

> I said I know drunk driving is not OK, but I wasn;t aware drunk posting was not OK. As far as I know there is no law against drunk posting, but thre is one aginst drunk driving.
> You then brought up libel which has nothing to do with drink, in fact you're more likely to get away with libel if you are drunk.

a) If you can count to 80, please do that on the chacacters of
your line above. Tell us where you reached 80. Then tell
us why you post lines that are longer, when the recommended
line length is somewhere around 72 and the maximum line
length by convention is 80.

b) So you claim because you are drunk, you can write whatever
you like and however you like?


>> What is the point of your spurious newlines all over the
>> posting?

> To seperate the individual points as you seem to think that there's a link between drunk driving and drunk posting....

And they are between each line? Multiple times?

You're not even able to make excuses one could accept even
stoned and drunk.


>> >> >> > there's no laws regarding posting other than poor Bill Posters who keeps getting prosecuted.

>> >> >> It seems you are singularly uninformed about the laws in the UK.
>> >> >> Do ask a lawyer about 'libel', for example.

>> >> > I have, ask them about free speech, it's not for sale apparently.

>> >> 'free *political* speech', yes, and try 'free speech' by
>> >> shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for the classic example.

>> > Nothing wrong with shouting fire in a crowded theatre if there's a fire.

>> Arson is wrong, too.

> Yes it is, but warning people that there is a fire is NOT wrong.

So you say arson is fine if you only do it to warn people of
a fire?


> Being labeled a fire marshall here, I do have to shout at students[1] to get out when the fire alarm sounds, nothing illegal in that.

> [1] and others including a secettary who was "just going to teh toilet during the fire alarm as she didn't want to leave the building 'wanting to go to the loo'.

What the hell is a "secettary"?

And you're still not allowed to lay fire just because you want
to yell at students. Even though many arsonists gravitate
to firemens' jobs and similar occupations.


>> >> Libel is not excused by 'free speech'.

>> > I didn;t say it was, so again what point are you making ?

>> Tell me what was the point of your "I have, ask them about
>> free speech, it's not for sale apparently."?

> You seme to imply that there was a 'cost' in warning people of fire.

No, I'm not a semantic component (a 'seme').
And yes, there is a cost in 'warning' people of fire.

> I klnow on the underground theres is a cost to using the 'pull cord' to stop the train think it's about £50 but only if you use without good reason.

"klnow", is that for "kingston lounge now" on twitter, and
what's that to do with the underground?


>> >> > As for drunk posting which wass your original point I'm not sure about that, but it also depends what's said and about who.

>> >> Immediately obvious are various crimes against ortography.

>> > Such as what ?

>> "emotainal", "cover yuotr eyes", "informatiin", "unimaotional
>> peolpe", "Unimotional people", "unimotianl people",
>> "fuctashima reactor", "wheich wione they prefer", "I ndon;t",
>> "kill hiumans", "minuites", "Hukans", "it's hardly relivant",
>> "TYhe earlist life on teh plante", "stronhg", "loko closely",
>> "don;t lok", "that isnteh reason", "relible", "buyiong",
>> "interchangalbe", "remmeber", and the constant use of ";"
>> when a "'" should be used, like in "didn;t".

> So what are the sentances for these crimes ?

What are "sentances"? The sent*e*nces can be found by simply
looking at what you posted, google will help you out.


>> Though I must admit you recently got better.

I withdraw that --- it seems you're on whatever you smoke
again. Try a spell checker ...


>> >> They tend to hide the pointless rambling.

>> > They haven't hid your post, so they aren;t exactly powerful are they.

>> My spelling isn't even on the same continent of "bad" as yours
>> is at times.

> Most are typo's .

This one, however, is the mistaken belief that an apostrophe
means "Warning, here comes an 's'". Or are you really saying
Most are "belongs to typo"
?

> In fact while typing this I'm watching a student flattening a piece of aluminium with a pair of tin snipps....
> Now I've handed him a small hammer and a piece of wood.

So you're at work and on whisky at the same time?


>> > Now what was yuor original point again, about not posting when drunk, are you drunk as you're not making much sense if you're posting sober.

>> Whisky-dave, you have been aptly named.

> How would you know that, well there's two people that called me whisky-dave going back 20+ years, but not because I got drunk on whisky, but because I didn't.

Or rather, because you've developped a remarkable tolerance to
alcohol, and you need to keep up the alcoholic intake to keep
it. Don't let anyone from the medical field look at your liver!


-Wolfgang

[sorry for the quoted empty lines]

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:15:35 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:04:31 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:13:23 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> >> > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:29:30 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>>For heaven's sake! Are you too darn stupid or too darn drunk
>>to fix your sorry excuse for a newsreader, or do you believe
>>because you use Google to post you're allowed to trample over
>>*all* conventions?

>>Don't you see all the empty lines you have produced?

> He's not the only one to do that. There are a number of people who use
> news readers which don't wrap lines in the articles or replies they
> are sending. These are the ones who keep on introducing double spaces.

Would that be the ones who use Google's sorry excuse for
a newsreader?

(I don't know about the wisdom of wrapping lines you are
quoting, though.)

-Wolfgang