pleasant experiences

In message <g5b7oa$aqn$2@registered.motzarella.org>, at 22:28:36 on Sat,
12 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>> When there's a slanging match like this, my natural inclination is
>> to support the person who isn't hiding behind an anonymous posting
>> ID.
>
>...unlike the person who is posting through Google groups and
>displaying an email address that could go anywhere you mean?...

So you believe the domain name and email address in the signature is a
forgery? That's a pretty serious allegation.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5bftl$rsc$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 00:48:26 on Sun,
13 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>You just don't get do you, railway property is private property and as
>such the owner or his/her agents have every right under the law to
>make what ever condition of entry/use as they like and can change
>those requirements as and when they like - don't like it, then don't
>enter/use their property...

Of course they can't. I look forward to the ToC who thinks it can
require all black female passengers (but not the white ones) to travel
topless, having exercised what it believes to be its legal right to
demand they remove their clothing.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5baln$vjo$2@registered.motzarella.org>, at 23:17:23 on Sat,
12 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>>>> When there's a slanging match like this, my natural inclination is
>>>> to support the person who isn't hiding behind an anonymous posting
>>>> ID.
>>>
>>>...unlike the person who is posting through Google groups and
>>>displaying an email address that could go anywhere you mean?...
>>
>> So you believe the domain name and email address in the signature is
>> a forgery? That's a pretty serious allegation.
>
>No, just that the poster still might not read it

The issue is one of knowing who the poster is, not whether he reads his
email.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5ch3i$vg6$2@registered.motzarella.org>, at 10:15:17 on Sun,
13 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>>>such the owner or his/her agents have every right under the law to
>>>make what ever condition of entry/use as they like and can change
>>>those requirements as and when they like - don't like it, then don't
>>>enter/use their property...
>>
>> Of course they can't. I look forward to the ToC who thinks it can
>> require all black female passengers (but not the white ones) to
>> travel topless, having exercised what it believes to be its legal
>> right to demand they remove their clothing.
>
>That would then be racist (and yes the law would prevent it),

And is there a law preventing them insisting on the "topless" part?
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5cjdk$dpa$3@registered.motzarella.org>, at 10:54:40 on Sun,
13 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>But who says you are "Roland Perry" (if you are post you NI
>number...), you could be 'Mark Smith', or 'Janet Bumsted' or Tony
>Blair for all we know!

It's trivially easy to demonstrate it's true from the substantial online
footprint I have. I'm even in Wikipedia (not the Australian author; the
Amstrad CPC section). But I don't wear yellow trousers any more.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5cptv$p53$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 12:45:54 on Sun,
13 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:

>So you say, step forward (with proof) the real "Roland Perry"....

Email me at the address I've had since 1996, and I'll email you back.
--
Roland Perry

In message <g5dkdu$uvl$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 20:12:08 on Sun,
13 Jul 2008, Jerry <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> remarked:
>> You want someone to divluge their NI number on Usenet are you even
>> more crazy than you seem? Utter madness.
>
>No, I don't, what I'm saying is, it would be the only way someone
>could go anyway in proving that they are who they say they are.

It would only prove anything if you had access to a database of NI
numbers, which seems rather unlikely.
--
Roland Perry

In message <F9CdnVP1uOvZKObVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet >, at
21:21:25 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> remarked:
>So you're not a person, you're a "vanity addition"!

Apparently so :)
--
Roland Perry