Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Ian Smith <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Aug 2008 12:09:32 GMT
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:14:43 +0100, nully <nully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:52:22 +0100, nully <nully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:LOL, why not try taking a look up the thread, where your first bollocks
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:16:47 +0100, nully <nully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Perhaps you missed the "(more than a notional 'allowance' for error)"
Oh? You can cite examples where speeding motorists are ignored byEvery where they are less than 15% + 3mph (or whatever it is).
the police? Well I'm sure we'd all like you to elucidate?
that you snipped?
You are lying.
I did not miss it, I did not snip it, it was not present in your
posting, the totality of which reads:
post came in.
That _was_ my first post on the topic. My first post on the topic did
not snip anything in the message it was in response to. You lied
about it.
And please dont call me a liar
And you continue to lie about it, so now I'm killfiling you - it's
pointless talking to someone who is fundamentally incapable of even
knowing what they said in their immediately preceding post of a
thread.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: judith
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- References:
- Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Tom
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Tom
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Clive George
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Ian Smith
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: Ian Smith
- Re: Ho ho ho
- From: nully
- Ho ho ho
- Prev by Date: Re: Ho ho ho
- Next by Date: Re: Ho ho ho
- Previous by thread: Re: Ho ho ho
- Next by thread: Re: Ho ho ho
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|