Peter Bowditch is a SLOW Learner

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote

snip usual chidish waste of time

Wrong. This thread IS about you since YOU started it to harass and stalk
Peter Bowditch. When you do that, i.e., start a thread with someone's
name in the subject, the thread is ALWAYS about you.



LadyLollipop wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


LadyLollipop wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
om...



"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.


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 true.



Poor Mark.

Peter and Peter ALONE IS RESPONSIBILE FOR HIS POSTS.


Maybe you should examine YOUR behavior.

Newsflash, Mark. This thread is NOT ABOUT ME.

REGARDLESS OF YOU TWISTING.

TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE.

LadyLollipop wrote:
LadyLollipop wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.

LadyLollipop wrote:
LadyLollipop wrote:

"Mark Probert"


Is a slow learner also.

Slow learner is way better than non-learner.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.

Mark Probert wrote:

LadyLollipop wrote:
LadyLollipop wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.

Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.


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.
--
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:
Mark Probert wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:

LadyLollipop wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...



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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.


Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.

That would be interesting.

BTW, while doing a bit of research for my response to Peter Moran, I
found that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' Jr. (Sr. was
the poet) wife was a Bowditch.

Curious...

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.

Mark Probert wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:

LadyLollipop wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...



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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.


Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.

That would be interesting.

BTW, while doing a bit of research for my response to Peter Moran, I
found that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' Jr. (Sr. was
the poet) wife was a Bowditch.

Curious...

I have just nominated for a position on the board of Electronic
Frontiers Australia (http://www.efa.org.au), and I cited OWH Jr in the
blurb I had to write to support the nomination.

Now I find that he was a relative. Spooky!
--
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:
Mark Probert wrote:


Peter Bowditch wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



LadyLollipop wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:



"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...




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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.


Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.

That would be interesting.

BTW, while doing a bit of research for my response to Peter Moran, I
found that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' Jr. (Sr. was
the poet) wife was a Bowditch.

Curious...


I have just nominated for a position on the board of Electronic
Frontiers Australia (http://www.efa.org.au), and I cited OWH Jr in the
blurb I had to write to support the nomination.

As a strong supporter of civil rights and the Constitution, I am honored
to have spooked you!

IMNSHO, OWH is one of the great minds that have sat on the Supreme Court
of the United States. While I am generally a philospical absolutist in
the application of the word 'no' as contained in the First Amendment, my
realist side finds his 'Clear and Present Danger' rule to be an
excellent compromise. As you probably have read, I am also a big fan of
his free marketplace of ideas concept.

In a way, he can be considered the founding father of usenet's discussions.

In what context did you quote him?




Now I find that he was a relative. Spooky!

Mark Probert wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:


Peter Bowditch wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



LadyLollipop wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:



"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...




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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.


Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.

That would be interesting.

BTW, while doing a bit of research for my response to Peter Moran, I
found that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' Jr. (Sr. was
the poet) wife was a Bowditch.

Curious...


I have just nominated for a position on the board of Electronic
Frontiers Australia (http://www.efa.org.au), and I cited OWH Jr in the
blurb I had to write to support the nomination.

As a strong supporter of civil rights and the Constitution, I am honored
to have spooked you!

IMNSHO, OWH is one of the great minds that have sat on the Supreme Court
of the United States. While I am generally a philospical absolutist in
the application of the word 'no' as contained in the First Amendment, my
realist side finds his 'Clear and Present Danger' rule to be an
excellent compromise. As you probably have read, I am also a big fan of
his free marketplace of ideas concept.

In a way, he can be considered the founding father of usenet's discussions.

In what context did you quote him?

As part of the nomination I had to supply something about myself in
support. This is what I said:

I am a computer consultant by day with my own business, and in my
spare time I produce a web site at www.ratbags.com. I have always
believed in Oliver Wendell Holmes' concept of the market of ideas,
where the answer to speech is more speech, and one of the policies
that I have had for my web site since its inception is that anyone can
say anything they like about me and my only response will be words.
One of the greatest positives about the Internet is that it allows
anyone to publish anything and allows anyone who complains the same
right to publish rebuttal.

Like most people I talked the talk and it was all rather academic,
until, as Pastor Niemöller said, "Then they came for me", and I was
dragged into court by someone who didn't like what I had to say about
them. This experience has made me want to be more actively involved in
gaining and keeping for everyone, not just me, the rights of free
expression that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights supposedly endows on the citizens of every country.

Like all rights, freedom of speech can be abused, but freedom of
speech is an example of Pascal's Wager - the cost of choosing
suppression and being wrong is far greater than the cost of choosing
freedom and allowing the occasional mistake.





Now I find that he was a relative. Spooky!
--
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:
Mark Probert wrote:


Peter Bowditch wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



Peter Bowditch wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:




LadyLollipop wrote:



LadyLollipop wrote:




"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...





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*.

Like I have told you 239 times in the past, when you start a thread with
someone's name in the subject, the THREAD IS ABOUT YOU! I reto

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.


Today's update:

The judge had to see his doctor first thing in the morning, so the
court session started about an hour later than planned. We have to go
back for about another hour next Thursday, after which it should all
be over. I have been asked and have agreed to make some changes to
wording on my site, and next week's session is to finalise those
agreed changes.

Apart from that I can't say much, as I am still under a court order to
not discuss substantial details of the case with anyone except my
legal advisors, a restraint which applies to all parties in cases such
as these.

I was almost left in the position of not being able to say anything at
all. I had been sworn in as a witness and the judge told me that I
could "step down for the moment" from the witness box. It was only
after the judge had left the court for the day that anyone realised
that I was still sworn in, so we had to get the judge's associate to
rush down to his chambers before he went home to get an official
release.

Light relief:

The judge was examining a document where the other side had underlined
words on my web site which they found fault with. For some reason they
had underlined the words "ACN has some very clever lawyers". When His
Honour got to these, my barrister simply said "We do not object to the
removal of those words, Your Honour". Collapse of stout party, and
everyone else in the room. I can't wait to see how the court reporter
recorded this in the transcript.

That would be interesting.

BTW, while doing a bit of research for my response to Peter Moran, I
found that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' Jr. (Sr. was
the poet) wife was a Bowditch.

Curious...


I have just nominated for a position on the board of Electronic
Frontiers Australia (http://www.efa.org.au), and I cited OWH Jr in the
blurb I had to write to support the nomination.

As a strong supporter of civil rights and the Constitution, I am honored
to have spooked you!

IMNSHO, OWH is one of the great minds that have sat on the Supreme Court
of the United States. While I am generally a philospical absolutist in
the application of the word 'no' as contained in the First Amendment, my
realist side finds his 'Clear and Present Danger' rule to be an
excellent compromise. As you probably have read, I am also a big fan of
his free marketplace of ideas concept.

In a way, he can be considered the founding father of usenet's discussions.

In what context did you quote him?


As part of the nomination I had to supply something about myself in
support. This is what I said:

I am a computer consultant by day with my own business, and in my
spare time I produce a web site at www.ratbags.com. I have always
believed in Oliver Wendell Holmes' concept of the market of ideas,
where the answer to speech is more speech, and one of the policies
that I have had for my web site since its inception is that anyone can
say anything they like about me and my only response will be words.
One of the greatest positives about the Internet is that it allows
anyone to publish anything and allows anyone who complains the same
right to publish rebuttal.

That is a wonderful idea and implements the Free Marketplace of Ideas
wonderfully.

I just had a thought...

Ms. Rosenthal champions that she is a supporter of free speech. Now,
since you give your critics the oportunity to rebut what you say...do
you think we should ask her for equal time on the Humantics webpages? If
she truly believed in Free Speech and the Free Marketplace of Ideas, she
would immediately jump on that opportunity to show how she is not a
hypocrite.

Damn! I could have written that. Just note that the SCOTUS justice is
OWH, Jr. His father is the poet. (I happen to like his writings, too. I
was introduced to him by a HS English teacher who was the son of the
poet, Vachel Lindsay (you had to hear the son read The Calliope-I wished
we had taping in those days). He required that we memorize Old
Ironsides, among a dozen other poems. My cousin has a complete set of
the Atlantic Monthly with his writings.)

Like most people I talked the talk and it was all rather academic,
until, as Pastor Niemöller said, "Then they came for me", and I was
dragged into court by someone who didn't like what I had to say about
them. This experience has made me want to be more actively involved in
gaining and keeping for everyone, not just me, the rights of free
expression that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights supposedly endows on the citizens of every country.

Like all rights, freedom of speech can be abused, but freedom of
speech is an example of Pascal's Wager - the cost of choosing
suppression and being wrong is far greater than the cost of choosing
freedom and allowing the occasional mistake.

Absolutely. If I were your college professor, I would give you an A.

BTW, did you have a chance to Google Prof. P, as yet?