Re: Gone to the wall with the Mk III

doggie-duck wrote:
> "El Barto" <Homer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:fqljv8$qt7$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> Oh and a word to the wise Doug, it could get VERY costly if you start 
>> trying to take someone to court over a Usenet message, far to many 
>> variables to consider for the poor Judge who will in all likely hood
end 
>> up throwing it out a nothing more than a waste of his and the Courts
time. 
>> But if you have very deep pockets, you might just be the first person
in 
>> Australia to succeed with such a vexatious and difficult to define
case.
>>
>> Bart
> 
> Clearly Bart... You missed the physical threat.
> Takes it out of civil jurisdiction and into the realm of Police action 
> 
> 

Too funny you fat ****er.

Please point out the physical threat. Apart from being a crap speller 
you obviously don't know what certain words mean.

The only way a cop would read this as a physical threat is if his brain 
is as ****ed and deluded as yours.

 >> All that's come out of these exchanges is identifying a couple of
 >> jack***** (you one of them, your shadow Mark the other) and a few
 >> school yard bullies without the guts to confront me personally. Lovely
 >> people. They must have been a terrible worry to their parents.
 >
 > Post your address and I will confront you personally.

(reposted so it is archived by Google groups)

-- 
"If someone had told me in 1989 that the BBS I started would eventually
become Usenet" - Douglas

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/01b383a7d3a33dc3