Pete goes back to being a man again.

External Since: Sep 18, 2006 Posts: 5

Geoff wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:38:01 +0200, "Philip Hart" <auldphatr.RemoveThis@aoI.con>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pete" <g23434ssd.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
> >ck5qg2dcn14jteltfrjmv4s7s3ernfvs50@4ax.com...
> >> On 17 Sep 2006 01:31:31 -0700, "Mark" <mark_etheridge.RemoveThis@volcanomail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >amacmil...@aol.com wrote (yet again):
> >> >
> >> >> Who's Pete?
> >> >
> >> >To save you having to post this question any more, let's keep this
> >> >simple (as I know you like very simple things)...
> >>
> >> Anything more would stretch you!
> >>
> >> >Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
> >> >agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
> >> >out many times, but it's always Pete.
> >>
> >> I agree with him!
> >
> >Too late. We already knew you were Pete. Couldn't you go back to some of
> >those lunatic names you used in the past? Geoff, Ian, Colin and so forth are
> >so mundane.
> >
> >Oh, yes. Another thing. Stop sneaking into mummy's room and trying on her
> >undies.
> >
>
> How many warrants are outstanding for you, should you ever set foot in
> the UK?

2,945.7 And all because I said the pope spoke the truth for once.

> Shame you had to run.

Keeps me in shape. 5 - 7 kms a day.

You seem a little petulant this evening, Pete. Did daddy catch you
trying on mummy's undies....again? Bwahahahaha........

External Since: Sep 17, 2006 Posts: 32

On 18 Sep 2006 12:03:58 -0700, "Philip H. Hart" <auldphart RemoveThis @aol.com>
wrote:

>
>Geoff wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:38:01 +0200, "Philip Hart" <auldphatr RemoveThis @aoI.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Pete" <g23434ssd RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
>> >ck5qg2dcn14jteltfrjmv4s7s3ernfvs50@4ax.com...
>> >> On 17 Sep 2006 01:31:31 -0700, "Mark" <mark_etheridge RemoveThis @volcanomail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >amacmil...@aol.com wrote (yet again):
>> >> >
>> >> >> Who's Pete?
>> >> >
>> >> >To save you having to post this question any more, let's keep this
>> >> >simple (as I know you like very simple things)...
>> >>
>> >> Anything more would stretch you!
>> >>
>> >> >Pete is the name of the only person on any of these groups who ever
>> >> >agrees with you, he may use different signatures as has been pointed
>> >> >out many times, but it's always Pete.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with him!
>> >
>> >Too late. We already knew you were Pete. Couldn't you go back to some of
>> >those lunatic names you used in the past? Geoff, Ian, Colin and so forth are
>> >so mundane.
>> >
>> >Oh, yes. Another thing. Stop sneaking into mummy's room and trying on her
>> >undies.
>> >
>>
>> How many warrants are outstanding for you, should you ever set foot in
>> the UK?
>
>2,945.7 And all because I said the pope spoke the truth for once.

How strange life works out. You spend all your time trying to
discredit ARAs, with lies, abuse, defamation,libel etc. Yet you're the
one who ends up on the run from the law!

They'll catch you one day, no doubt. In the meantime, the rest of us
don't really care. As long as you fail to stop the flow of information
against CONservation hooliganism, we can afford to just mock you.

>> Shame you had to run.
>
>Keeps me in shape. 5 - 7 kms a day.

Doesn't quite fit the image!

>
>You seem a little petulant this evening,

You're more to be pitied, than scorned.

> Pete.

There is no Pete, apart from inside your little head.

> Did daddy catch you
>trying on mummy's undies....again? Bwahahahaha........

It's not even vaguely funny. Even your simple friends like the old
soak, Etheridge doesn't understand your humor. No one does.

Seek help for your obsession.