|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LadyLollipop
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:23 am Post subject: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
 |
|
There is no *basis* to suggest that the current MLM model ($200 + GST entry
fee) used by ACN is a pyramid scheme
Now *WHERE*, have I heard that before?!?!
Oh, YES it was, Mark Thorson's retraction!
The *gang* is famous for making up ALL kinds of LIES without any *basis*.
statements were misleading and
deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and were false,
malicious and injurious
Having been caught in his LYING behavior, right on the same page, What does
he do?
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
Unfortunately, I cannot comply with "Dr" Baker's request for secrecy
<insults sniped>
For your reading pleasure I have extracted a copy of "Dr" Baker's
masterpiece from the Wayback Machine and you can read it here.
(nevermind it is copyrighted and all rights are reserved)
I guess he begs to be sued AGAIN!
OBSESSION to belittle taketh over.
Perhaps the court would be interested in knowing MORE of his NOT being able
to comply, as he *deceivingly* calls it?
I feel certain, Dr Baker would.
Peter must think he is above the law?
One thing for sure, he has NO MORALS.
What goes around, comes around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
....nothing that makes sense.
Jan, Honey, without proper attribution (look it up), these reposts of
yours make it impossible to see who said what. Please learn how to
properly mark the text you cut 'n' paste so the rest of us can follow
your (limited) train of thought.
Mark, MD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Bowditch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:53 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
| Quote: | There is no *basis* to suggest that the current MLM model ($200 + GST entry
fee) used by ACN is a pyramid scheme
|
There are no asterisks around the word "basis" in the text as
displayed on my web site. Changes such as this when quoting
court-ordered statements are probably contemptuous.
Observant people will note that the words above were not written by
me, but were included in a notice written by ACN and which I have
agreed (that is what the word "consent" means) to display until the
case is finalised. When ACN offered this form of words to the court,
the judge ordered them to include the fact that it was them saying it,
not me, and he made the point that their claim that this was a
"factual finding" of the Federal Court was not true - it was a
repetition of evidence presented to the court. For that reason, he
ordered them to include the words "The Federal Court of Australia does
not necessarily endorse any of the contents of this statement". By the
way, ACN committed a technical contempt of the court by not supplying
me with the form of words by the time ordered by the judge.
In actual, legal fact, there is definitely a basis for thinking that
the current scheme is in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. If
you want to read the Act, it is at
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/D96D65524F3C89F2CA25708B001CDC83/$file/TradePrac1974Vol1_WD02.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/88sa8 The relevant Division (1AAA) is at Page
181 of the Act or page 199 of the pdf file.
I invite Jan to discuss the possible application of the relevant parts
of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to ACN's current multi-level marketing
scheme.
| Quote: | Now *WHERE*, have I heard that before?!?!
Oh, YES it was, Mark Thorson's retraction!
|
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
| Quote: |
The *gang* is famous for making up ALL kinds of LIES without any *basis*.
statements were misleading and
deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and were false,
malicious and injurious
|
So they say. They have yet to argue this in a court, although we were
ready to defend the claim more than a week ago.
| Quote: | Having been caught in his LYING behavior, right on the same page, What does
he do?
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
Unfortunately, I cannot comply with "Dr" Baker's request for secrecy
insults sniped
For your reading pleasure I have extracted a copy of "Dr" Baker's
masterpiece from the Wayback Machine and you can read it here.
(nevermind it is copyrighted and all rights are reserved)
|
After you have given us your learned opinion about the Trade Practices
Act 1974, Jan, you might like to present us with your views on the
concept of "fair use" as regards to copyright.
| Quote: | I guess he begs to be sued AGAIN!
OBSESSION to belittle taketh over.
Perhaps the court would be interested in knowing MORE of his NOT being able
to comply, as he *deceivingly* calls it?
|
So tell them. Feel free to register as amicus curiae with the Federal
Court of Australia in the case with file number NSD1689/2005, but you
should do it by the time the court registry closes on Thursday,
October 20. You can find out how to contact the registry at
http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/contacts/contacts_nsw.html.
And what do you mean by the use of the word "deceivingly" in the
sentence quoted above? Or anything else in the sentence, for that
matter.
| Quote: | I feel certain, Dr Baker would.
|
So tell him. I know how you love to take things from this newsgroup
and out into real life.
| Quote: |
Peter must think he is above the law?
One thing for sure, he has NO MORALS.
What goes around, comes around.
-- |
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Probert
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:37 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
LadyLollipop wrote:
| Quote: | What a load of double talk,
|
How would you know? You do not understand "single talk". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Bowditch
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
|
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rod
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
Peter,
There is absolutely no need for the obscenities that you state in your
closing comments.
Whilst I have read the documents you have posted and to a degree I would
agree with your stance regarding the "Greedy feeding on the Needy". I would
suggest perhaps you need to tone down your vitriolic comments somewhat, You
could start by accepting that Jan is feeding back to you what many people
may feel about your comments on the matter.
I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would accept
your comments of: "Fuck off and die". This does seem the norm for this site
however it does little to help those that are sprouting same or the causes
that they profess to represent. Perhaps you may care to enlist same in the
avalanche of affidavits or simply let the Courts know verbally.
Needless to say you will have your hands full with this lot and I hope that
you will accept whatever the outcome is gracefully.
Cheers, Rod
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
| Quote: | "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Bowditch
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"Rod" <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Peter,
There is absolutely no need for the obscenities that you state in your
closing comments.
|
There rarely is a need, but this time I made an exception.
| Quote: | Whilst I have read the documents you have posted and to a degree I would
agree with your stance regarding the "Greedy feeding on the Needy". I would
suggest perhaps you need to tone down your vitriolic comments somewhat, You
could start by accepting that Jan is feeding back to you what many people
may feel about your comments on the matter.
|
Jan is feeding back her hatred. She is so blinded by the concept of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that she refuses to accept the
truth when it is presented to her. In this case she called me a liar
for saying that ACN had appealed a court decision. She made no attempt
to establish the facts, which are a matter of public record. In her
view, if I said it, it must be untrue.
| Quote: | I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would accept
your comments of: "Fuck off and die". This does seem the norm for this site
however it does little to help those that are sprouting same or the causes
that they profess to represent. Perhaps you may care to enlist same in the
avalanche of affidavits or simply let the Courts know verbally.
|
If you read my site, you will find that I never use profanity. I would
certainly never do it in a court, even when provoked by a lawyer who
was screaming great urgency one day (even to the point of wanting to
proceed with a hearing in my absence, and when that was not allowed by
the judge, to have the case heard when I was not represented by legal
counsel) who, two weeks later, failed to produce in court what he had
been subpoenaed to produce.
| Quote: | Needless to say you will have your hands full with this lot and I hope that
you will accept whatever the outcome is gracefully.
|
Of course I will. And when their appeal is rejected and they disappear
into the night, I will go to their empty office space and dance on
their grave. Gracefully.
| Quote: | Cheers, Rod
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
-- |
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Probert
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
Rod wrote:
| Quote: | Peter,
There is absolutely no need for the obscenities that you state in your
closing comments.
|
Jan has this tendency to bring that out in people. On this issue she has
merely repeatedly called Peter a liar, when any intelligent person can
clearly see that Peter has not been sanctioned by the court, and that he
is scrupuosly following the court's directions, which he agreed with.
In this regard, Jan appears to be nothing more than a harasser who
thinks that they found dirt on someone that they do not like and, like a
kid, is taunting Peter.
The saying, as yee sow, so shall yee reap does apply to her antics, and,
she gets back what she gives. When she does not like it, she whines that
the other person is responsible for their own actions, and ignores the
impact of hers. Pure hypocrisy.
| Quote: | Whilst I have read the documents you have posted and to a degree I would
agree with your stance regarding the "Greedy feeding on the Needy". I
would suggest perhaps you need to tone down your vitriolic comments
somewhat, You could start by accepting that Jan is feeding back to you
what many people may feel about your comments on the matter.
|
I would doubt 'many people'...try 'some people'....
| Quote: | I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would
accept your comments of: "Fuck off and die".
|
That comment goes to her antics, not the substance of the issue. Do not
confuse the two.
This does seem the norm for
| Quote: | this site however it does little to help those that are sprouting same
or the causes that they profess to represent. Perhaps you may care to
enlist same in the avalanche of affidavits or simply let the Courts know
verbally.
Needless to say you will have your hands full with this lot and I hope
that you will accept whatever the outcome is gracefully.
|
Will the other side? From my readings, Peter has taken a bite out of a
bad lion, and the lion will come back at him as best they can.
| Quote: | Cheers, Rod
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LadyLollipop
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:24 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
| Quote: | "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch
|
Those last four words is all one needs to know about your character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Probert
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
LadyLollipop wrote:
| Quote: | "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch
Those last four words is all one needs to know about your character.
|
And "Jew Boy" is all we need to know yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:24:23 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
<LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch
Those last four words is all one needs to know about your character.
Mark.................
Drop dead.
On 03 Jul 2004 01:00:21 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
Your words come back to bite you.
Jan
|
Of course Jan Drew will not take responsibility for telling someone to
drop dead which tells us much about her character. Instead she will
divert attention by changing the subject and attacking the messenger.
Like Jacob, Jan must lie to cover up previous lies.
Maybe Jan thinks it is OK to wish someone to die as long as you don't
use the "F" word.
God is recording Jan's words. I am sure he is pleased with her wishing
someone dead not to mention wishing disabilities on someone.
| Quote: | On 09 May 2004 03:10:30 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
I wish for you a good dose of mercury poisoning, peripheral neuropathy and
migraine headaches.
Aloha, |
Rich
PS: Jan is even a slower learner
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Best defense to logic is ignorance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LadyLollipop
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:acr9l1dsdgulp7lr6795q3qcoarcetv1k4@4ax.com...
| Quote: | "Rod" <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter,
There is absolutely no need for the obscenities that you state in your
closing comments.
There rarely is a need, but this time I made an exception.
|
Incorrect.
http://tinyurl.com/exe32
http://tinyurl.com/deo86
http://tinyurl.com/9r9f5
http://tinyurl.com/buj9s
2 posts under that url.
http://tinyurl.com/bh4fz
3 posts under that url.
http://tinyurl.com/buqr3
2 posts under that url.
Sort of shows the title of this thread to be truw.
| Quote: |
Whilst I have read the documents you have posted and to a degree I would
agree with your stance regarding the "Greedy feeding on the Needy". I
would
suggest perhaps you need to tone down your vitriolic comments somewhat,
You
could start by accepting that Jan is feeding back to you what many people
may feel about your comments on the matter.
Jan is feeding back her hatred. She is so blinded by the concept of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that she refuses to accept the
truth when it is presented to her. In this case she called me a liar
for saying that ACN had appealed a court decision. She made no attempt
to establish the facts, which are a matter of public record. In her
view, if I said it, it must be untrue.
|
OOPPPS, this is NOT about *Jan*
| Quote: |
I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would accept
your comments of: "Fuck off and die". This does seem the norm for this
site
however it does little to help those that are sprouting same or the causes
that they profess to represent. Perhaps you may care to enlist same in the
avalanche of affidavits or simply let the Courts know verbally.
If you read my site, you will find that I never use profanity. I would
certainly never do it in a court, even when provoked by a lawyer who
was screaming great urgency one day (even to the point of wanting to
proceed with a hearing in my absence, and when that was not allowed by
the judge, to have the case heard when I was not represented by legal
counsel) who, two weeks later, failed to produce in court what he had
been subpoenaed to produce.
Needless to say you will have your hands full with this lot and I hope
that
you will accept whatever the outcome is gracefully.
Of course I will. And when their appeal is rejected and they disappear
into the night, I will go to their empty office space and dance on
their grave. Gracefully.
Cheers, Rod
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LadyLollipop
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:qi65f.29391$Ge5.7131@fe10.lga...
| Quote: | Rod wrote:
Peter,
There is absolutely no need for the obscenities that you state in your
closing comments.
Poor Mark Probert,
|
This thread is NOT about *Jan*.
Regardless of your LYING.
| Quote: |
Whilst I have read the documents you have posted and to a degree I would
agree with your stance regarding the "Greedy feeding on the Needy". I
would suggest perhaps you need to tone down your vitriolic comments
somewhat, You could start by accepting that Jan is feeding back to you
what many people may feel about your comments on the matter.
I would doubt 'many people'...try 'some people'....
I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would
accept your comments of: "Fuck off and die".
That comment goes to her antics, not the substance of the issue. Do not
confuse the two.
|
Peter and Peter ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HE TYPES.
P E R I O D.
Some thing YOU STILL REFUSE TO ACCEPT!
| Quote: |
This does seem the norm for
this site however it does little to help those that are sprouting same or
the causes that they profess to represent. Perhaps you may care to enlist
same in the avalanche of affidavits or simply let the Courts know
verbally.
Needless to say you will have your hands full with this lot and I hope
that you will accept whatever the outcome is gracefully.
Will the other side? From my readings, Peter has taken a bite out of a bad
lion, and the lion will come back at him as best they can.
Cheers, Rod
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Bowditch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:25 am Post subject: Re: Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner |
|
|
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:aed9l1p9c3u7tmis45adckqeq6gbd0pjnq@4ax.com...
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
Mark's retraction might have some relevance here if you were quoting
something I had said, rather than something which someone else had
said, which a judge had expressed doubt about, and which was a matter
for two days of appeal hearings before the full Federal Court last
week.
So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.
I must have missed this when this load'o'crap went past me for the
first time.
Go to http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/ctlists/ctlists_appeals.html
Scroll down the page until you see:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian
Communications Network Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 988 SAD171/2005 25/07/2005
Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005
[2005] FCA 276
Trade Practices
See where it says "Full Court Hearing 11-12/10/2005"?
Two days. Last week.
Fuck off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch
Those last four words is all one needs to know about your character.
|
And your refusal to say five words is all one needs to know about your
character. If you like, you can try saying them in private before
rereading the message above and seeing why accusing me of lying was
wrong. You could then, as Bob Dylan wrote, just come out once and
scream it.
Come on, Jan. Whisper the words, and then say them publicly. You know
which words I am talking about: "I'm sorry. I was wrong".
Of course you won't. The previous lines in the Dylan song referred to
above perfectly capture your attitude towards me and any other person
with whom you disagree:
When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Actually, Dylan really had your number when he wrote Positively 4th
Street. Just look at the last three verses:
And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
It's not my problem
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you
(The whole song is applicable, but I respect Bob's copyright. All the
words are at http://bobdylan.com/songs/positively.html.)
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Archive
