Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner

"LadyLollipop" wrote:

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"LadyLollipop" wrote:

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.

*I* put them there, as we have heard this before.


Changes such as this when quoting
court-ordered statements are probably contemptuous.

ROTFLOL!!!!!



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.

What a load of double talk, so famous from a liar like Peter Bowditch,
learnt from *organized medicine*

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.

You just never learn, do you, and WHY do you care?

What's the big deal?


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.

So YOU say, and YOU are a proven liar.


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.

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.

MY learned opinion is:

Keep your nose out of other people's copyrighted webites!!!!!!

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.

You know EXACTLY what I mean, and *I* am not the only one.

3. Peter Bowditch Mar 18 2004, 10:18 pm show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Peter Bowditch - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:16:51 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 10:16 pm
Subject: Reply to Anth (response - dr cabot)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse



"Anth" wrote:
I see - it apears she is very much a qualified doc.
Dr Sandra Cabot is published in many different countries and languages. In
the USA Sandra uses the letters MD after her name, which is the American
equivalent of the Australian MBBS, and simply means Medical Doctor and not
Medical Doctorate.

This is what I thought her 'MD' would mean, so she's not being deceptive at
all.



I have decided to call my self Peter Bowditch MB,BS, KCMG

The letters after my name simply mean "Member of the Bowditch family,
Bill's Son" and not Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. I am
not being deceptive at all.


I don't think the KCMG will get me better tables in restaurants,
because everyone will understand that it simply means "Kathleen Called
Me Grandson" and not "Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and
St George". It won't be deceptive because people know that I am a
republican and would never accept such a bauble from the Queen. Of
course, if people want to address me as "Sir Peter" I will not be so
impolite as to correct them.


My sister is going to put "JD" after her name. Nobody will think she's
deceiving anyone about being a lawyer or having a university degree,
because it simply means "Joan's Daughter".


--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10
http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com



4. Jan Mar 18 2004, 10:40 pm show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: (Jan) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Mar 2004 03:40:33 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 10:40 pm
Subject: Reply to Anth (response - dr cabot)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Subject: Reply to Anth (response - dr cabot)
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 3/18/2004 7:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Anth" wrote:


I see - it apears she is very much a qualified doc.
Dr Sandra Cabot is published in many different countries and
languages. In
the USA Sandra uses the letters MD after her name, which is the
American
equivalent of the Australian MBBS, and simply means Medical Doctor
and not
Medical Doctorate.


This is what I thought her 'MD' would mean, so she's not being
deceptive at
all.


I have decided to call my self



We don't care. You tried to decive as you have done many times before.

From: John Bain )
Subject: Bringing up children
View: Complete Thread (62 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-06-30 08:10:06 PST



"Karuna" writes:
Shock! Shame! Horror! ... It is called discussion. I had this
rather
wierdo idea that mha was kind of a discussion group.


It cannot be a useful discussion group when participants deliberately
set out
to deceive and remain unchallenged.

The point of the Ben Kolb item, which was an article about the
Dateline TV
programme, was not an attack on the doctors involved in the Ben Kolb
case, but
a discussion of the problem in getting safety information to doctors.
The point was made that airlines have well defined procedures for
this. CM
does not.
The doctors involved in the case gave a presentation explaining what
went
wrong, but a check on hospitals made by the Dateline researchers
revealed that
the 'procedure' that led to the death was still being carried out.


Seems perfectly simple doesn't it.


But Jan was accused of using the Ben Kolb case to divert attention.
You have seen Peter B's statement which is a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
He may well know someone, somewhere who has used the Ben Kolb case to
'divert',
but Jan did not and no-one else here has done so.
Jan challenged Peter as having lied about this and whenever she sees
another
'lie' from Peter, lists the lies he made about her, including the Ben
Kolb
case, which he has not withdrawn.
Again, this is not an attempt to divert, but a challenge to a 'liar'
who
repeats his 'lies' to deceive other posters.
He seems to have deceived you.


The other challenge to Jan's original post was that this was not a
'procedure'
in medical terms so the entire article must be incompetent and not
worth
reading. But the article was a heavily edited transcript of the TV
programme,
and that programme has not been challenged.
It was also claimed that the participants did not say the things the
article
suggested, because their words were not included in inverted commas.
But
again this was a transcript of a TV programme which Jan watched and
the
participants said those things on the programme.


All Jan has going for her is passion. Her opponents are often very
clever
deceivers, their statements may be factually accurate, but they are
not 'the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' and their intention
is to
mislead. Their attitude seems to be that the ends, discrediting AM,
justify
the means.
And it works.
Jan's 'line' is often distorted and she does get the 'wrong end of the
stick'
sometimes, and if you jump into the middle of a thread, it is so easy
to assume
that the other side is the voice of reason rather than deliberate
deception,
particularly when other posters, who have been already deceived, join
in and
miss the point.


Best wishes
--
John Bain


From: John Bain )
Subject: As dense as, well, mercury
View: Complete Thread (14 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-12-20 08:53:43 PST



Peter Bowditch writes:
For those who came in late, I was accused of lying for pointing out
to
Jan that words have meanings and that the word "procedure" has a
meaning in a medical context. The procedure that was to be performed
on Ben Kolb had been done thousands of times before and has been done
many times since. The practice of inadequate labelling which led to
his death is something which several doctors and nurses said that
they
had never seen. When some television reporter got confused about the
words "procedure" and "practice" and asked someone if the "procedure"
was still used, that person said "yes". Cutting off the wrong leg,
that old favourite of anti-medicine people, calls into question the
practice of documenting which leg to cut off but does not in any way
invalidate the surgical procedure of amputation.


No Peter, you were accused of deliberate wordplay to deny the
conclusions of
the programme.
Whether the reporter used the words procedure or practice is quite
irrelevant,
the programme made it quite clear what the problem was.

Remember this
Lying topic titles
From: J BainSI
To: misc.health.alternative
Date: 28/02/2002



Peter Bowditch writes:
Yet again I am accused of lying by "twisting" the Ben Kolb story.
Here, once again, are my comments about this tragedy.
1) That Ben Kolb died is a tragedy. He died because of a mistake
arising from a dangerous practice of decanting chemicals into
unmarked
containers.


Quite correct, but nothing to do with the issue. The point is that
there is
no procedure in place to ensure that this does not happen again. The
particular hospital involved has instituted procedures, but experts
have said
that this procedure is still being carried out in other hospitals.
It is
unlikely to change until a similar accident happens at those other
hospitals.
Or Mark P is called in to point out the error of their waysg

That is the point. CM does not learn by it's mistakes, only
individual
practitioners do.
The point was made that the airline business is tightly regulated so
that this
type of accident is not repeated. No such system exists in CM or AM.
But
let's put CM's house in order first.



2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)


All irrelevant to the point of the article.


I am still waiting for jan to succinctly state where I "lied",
without
discussing semantics. I am also still waiting for a simple "yes" or
"no" answer to the question of whether she believes that Tim Bolen
tells lies.


I believe that Tim 'tells lies', just as I believe you 'tell lies'
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is required here.
You deliberately omitted the point of the article above in an attempt
to
deceive your readers.
You succeeded with one of the Marks.
Do you not consider deliberate deception as lying?
Or is it OK if it bolsters your beliefs and helps persuade others that
your
beliefs are the True Beliefs?
So, I would put you and Tim in the same category.
That makes you a 'liar'.
--------------------------------------
Best wishes
--
John Bain
UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
Surround Sound for Television

You lose again.


Put BS ater your name, it fits well.


Jan





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.

Guess what, Peter?

This is NOT about *me*!!!

YOU and YOU alone are responsibile for What you post on YOUR website, so
you can STOP pointing the finger at me!


Peter must think he is above the law?

One thing for sure, he has NO MORALS.

What goes around, comes around.


--
Peter Bowditch

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:L4B4f.443346$_o.112449@attbi_s71...

..

What a load of double talk, so famous from a liar like Peter Bowditch,
learnt from *organized medicine*

There is no "*organized medicine*", Jan.


--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

LadyLollipop wrote:

What a load of double talk,

How would you know? You do not understand "single talk".

"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** 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

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: "**** 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" wrote in message
...
"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** 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

"Rod" 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.

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.

I hardly think that the Courts or anyone with a sane attitude would accept
your comments of: "**** 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" wrote in message
.. .
"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** 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

Rod wrote:
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.

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: "**** 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
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" wrote in message
...

"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** 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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** off and die.
--
Peter Bowditch

Those last four words is all one needs to know about your character.

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

"LadyLollipop" 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/ctlis...s_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.

**** 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.