Follett & Terry

Is it true that they're gay lovers?

--
Sarah Lewis

---

› See More: Follett & Terry

Sarah Lewis (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<[email protected]>:

>
> Is it true that they're gay lovers?
>

Who? and who?
--
Terms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status.
Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children.

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:03:15 +0000, Sarah Lewis wrote:

>
>Is it true that they're gay lovers?

No, is it true you have a **** or you are simply are one ?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

"Dave (Sgt. Pepper)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jim Watt" <[email protected]_way> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:03:15 +0000, Sarah Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Is it true that they're gay lovers?
>>
>> No, is it true you have a **** or you are simply are one ?
>
> It seems you are the one with surplus are's on offer.
> --
> Dave (Sgt. Pepper) Epsom, England
> Nikon D2X / D2Hs / D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700
> My photo galleries at http://www.pbase.com/davecq
> "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"
>
>he's always flashing his ares about

Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
> "Jim Watt" <[email protected]_way> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:03:15 +0000, Sarah Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is it true that they're gay lovers?
>>
>> No, is it true you have a **** or you are simply are one ?
>
> It seems you are the one with surplus are's on offer.

And grocers' apostrophes?

On 10-Feb-2007, Sarah Lewis wrote:

> Is it true that they're gay lovers?

Hmmm.....

Well, lots of rumours hinting at things like that, Sarah, but so far nothing
worth printing unless you want a writ falling down upon you.

HOWEVER:

Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of his
friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for the description
fits him to a 'T'.

Follett often talks in the demon.local newsgroup of how *ONLY* his said
controvertial historian friend has "access" to "secret" archives which show
Winston Churchill was a war criminal "by default". The said archives allege
- according to Follett and his "well known German speaking historian" - that
Karl Doenitz requested safe passage for Kriegsmarine sailors rescued from a
sunken U-Boat in the South Atlantic, and for those distressed Kriegsmarine
sailors to be towed to safety by another U-Boat. Follett claims Doenitz's
request for safe passage for the Kriegsmarine sailors was never answered by
Churchill and this apparently, in Follett's [book] constitutes a war crime.
In my book, I doubt that any such request would ever have been made by Karl
Dönitz. Sailors from Kriegsmarine vessels could neither ask, nor expect,
safe conduct from an adversary in time of war. Just the same as sailors from
ships of HM Royal Navy could not make such requests nor expect them to be
answered by *any* adversary. Follett has repeated these false claims ad
infinitum without ever once giving reference in any shape or form to his
wild allegations, except to claim "he has seen secret archives".

Yes, ... well...

I have said before that this man, Follett, *is* a liar after he has refused
to withdraw the wholly untruthful allegations he has made on this matter.

A canny writer of fiction he may well be, and his reputation should remain
at that level.

You will have to make your own mind up concerning his personal life


--
"I think it really is time to sort out Mr. Wim Jay... as nasty a piece of
excrement as one could expect to smell at 400 metres on a dark night..
Someone techy point me at him, please.. a score now needs settling." -
Keith, in demon.local, 2002 a.d.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

John of Aix wrote:
> Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
>> "Jim Watt" <[email protected]_way> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:03:15 +0000, Sarah Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it true that they're gay lovers?
>>>
>>> No, is it true you have a **** or you are simply are one ?
>>
>> It seems you are the one with surplus are's on offer.
>
> And grocers' apostrophes?

And apothecary's hash?

X-No-Archive: yes

In message <[email protected]>, Wim Jay
<[email protected]> writes

>Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
>speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of his
>friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for the description
>fits him to a 'T'.

For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
unfounded smeers and sneers. I can't possibly be a friend of the poor
chap because he's dead.

>Follett often talks in the demon.local newsgroup of how *ONLY* his said
>controvertial historian friend has "access" to "secret" archives which show
>Winston Churchill was a war criminal "by default".

For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
unfounded sneers and smears. There is nothing secret about the
Kriegsmarine achives held by Bundesarchiv in Freiburg. Nor have I ever
said that WS was a war criminal 'by default'.

> Follett claims Doenitz's
>request for safe passage for the Kriegsmarine sailors was never answered by
>Churchill and this apparently, in Follett's [book] constitutes a war crime.

For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
unfounded sneers and smears. You could start by actually reading my book
"Those in Peril". If you did you'd make the astonishing discovery that I
didn't mention the incident at all. I did mention it in passing on a
newsgroup and, my word, how you decided not to believe me! (Your
hysterical outbursts were quite amusing). That's your prerogative. I
have no quarrel with that but for you to allow your hatred of me to
colour your judgement to the extent of screaming liar at me is just
plain silliness.

>I have said before that this man, Follett, *is* a liar after he has refused
>to withdraw the wholly untruthful allegations he has made on this matter.

And to back up this nonsensical claim, you recently posted the following
about me:

Yup. I am an old age pensioner and I know he is too. Why should
****ing multi-thousandaires like him get fings for free just
'cos he's old and decrepit but with loads a' money, while the
rest of us suffer? He got bloody huge tax breaks under Maggie
Thatcher, Oh yes, he did! But will he or any of the dirty tax
dodgers ever consider repaying wot they owe their country? OH,
NO THEY WON'T!!!! Cos they're thieving bar stewards the lost of
them.

Your above comment is a mass of untruths from beginning to end and
demonstrates such an appalling ignorance and lack of research that I can
be forgiven for thinking that you need a crash course in citizenship. In
answer to your question about 'fings for free' I receive drugs for free
because the law says that people of my age can do so. I'm astonished
that you should be unaware of this.

I was desperate to leave hospital but before I could be discharged the
hospital's stroke home support team had to inspect my home to assess its
suitability for me. They carried out a number of minor mods such as
providing a push-up frame around the toilet, wooden raiser blocks under
my bed and chair. (One nifty device was a short rope ladder that
attached to the end of bed to enable me to pull myself up). All the bits
and bobs they supplied are on loan. Among their safety checks was one to
ensure that the water temperature of the downstairs shower was stable.
They ran the shower while flushing the loos in the downstairs and
upstairs bathrooms.

Stroke support units provide an invaluable service in getting long term
patients out of expensive bed-blocking hospital care and into the
community. My on-going needs are minimal -- a weekly visit by the nurse
was deemed sufficient. This is because I have a loving wife who provides
wonderful care, but many lone people are less fortunate than myself --
they rely on twice daily visits by the stroke support team to get them
up and dressed, and to put them to bed. It's true the service is free.
It was offered. The team members are experts in their respective fields,
and it would be foolish and churlish to refuse such help.

On the advice of the team, the Red Cross Supplies Unit in Godalming
loaned me a wheelchair for two months. I'm a big bloke therefore it was
sensible to let them select a suitable wheelchair for me from their huge
stock and make sure it was safe. I could've easily spent GBP500 plus on
buying a wheelchair which may have been unsuitable. The chair will be
returned with a donation.

I suggest you do some research to compare the cost of keeping a stroke
patient in hospital or providing a home support team who can keep
several patients at home. Your insinuation that I received help based on
wealth is, like so many of your vicious assertions about me, wildly
untrue.

You went on to say:

He got bloody huge tax breaks under Maggie Thatcher, Oh yes, he
did! But will he or any of the dirty tax dodgers ever consider
repaying wot they owe their country? OH, NO THEY WON'T!!!! Cos
they're thieving bar stewards the lost of them.

As did many tax-payers when Nigel Lawson pulled his extraordinary tax
cut rabbits out of the hat. Your insinuation that I'm a tax dodger and
won't consider repaying what I owe is absurd on all counts and
demonstrates your total inability to do even a modicum of research
before blazing away with a barrage of untruths. For one thing I'm not a
tax dodger and never have been. Nor have I ever been accused of
tax-dodging. All my tax demands are paid promptly when OKed by my
accountant. The repaying obligation of which you speak is a figment of
your imagination. A little research will reveal that there never was any
retrospective tax on tax payers as a result of cuts in income tax under
Nigel Lawson. Only in your strange, hate-filled world could people be
considered 'thieving' for not paying tax demands they've never received
or ever likely to receive.

A tip. I suggest you make an effort to end your strange obsession with
me. There's just enough of my life to go around for me; I promise you
it's not worth sharing. You'd be better off seeking your own. Also
you've had your year's supply of courteous replies from me.

Good luck and best wishes

--
James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

JF wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <[email protected]>, Wim Jay
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
>> speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of
>> his friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for the
>> description fits him to a 'T'.
>
> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
> unfounded smeers and sneers. I can't possibly be a friend of the poor
> chap because he's dead.

David Irving? When did that happen?
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

"JF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <[email protected]>, Wim Jay
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>>Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
>>speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of his
>>friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for the
>>description
>>fits him to a 'T'.
>
> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
> unfounded smeers and sneers. I can't possibly be a friend of the poor
> chap because he's dead.
>
>>Follett often talks in the demon.local newsgroup of how *ONLY* his said
>>controvertial historian friend has "access" to "secret" archives which
>>show
>>Winston Churchill was a war criminal "by default".
>
> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
> unfounded sneers and smears. There is nothing secret about the
> Kriegsmarine achives held by Bundesarchiv in Freiburg. Nor have I ever
> said that WS was a war criminal 'by default'.
>
>> Follett claims Doenitz's
>>request for safe passage for the Kriegsmarine sailors was never answered
>>by
>>Churchill and this apparently, in Follett's [book] constitutes a war
>>crime.
>
> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
> unfounded sneers and smears. You could start by actually reading my book
> "Those in Peril". If you did you'd make the astonishing discovery that I
> didn't mention the incident at all. I did mention it in passing on a
> newsgroup and, my word, how you decided not to believe me! (Your
> hysterical outbursts were quite amusing). That's your prerogative. I
> have no quarrel with that but for you to allow your hatred of me to
> colour your judgement to the extent of screaming liar at me is just
> plain silliness.
>
>>I have said before that this man, Follett, *is* a liar after he has
>>refused
>>to withdraw the wholly untruthful allegations he has made on this matter.
>
> And to back up this nonsensical claim, you recently posted the following
> about me:
>
> Yup. I am an old age pensioner and I know he is too. Why should
> ****ing multi-thousandaires like him get fings for free just
> 'cos he's old and decrepit but with loads a' money, while the
> rest of us suffer? He got bloody huge tax breaks under Maggie
> Thatcher, Oh yes, he did! But will he or any of the dirty tax
> dodgers ever consider repaying wot they owe their country? OH,
> NO THEY WON'T!!!! Cos they're thieving bar stewards the lost of
> them.
>
> Your above comment is a mass of untruths from beginning to end and
> demonstrates such an appalling ignorance and lack of research that I can
> be forgiven for thinking that you need a crash course in citizenship. In
> answer to your question about 'fings for free' I receive drugs for free
> because the law says that people of my age can do so. I'm astonished
> that you should be unaware of this.
>
> I was desperate to leave hospital but before I could be discharged the
> hospital's stroke home support team had to inspect my home to assess its
> suitability for me. They carried out a number of minor mods such as
> providing a push-up frame around the toilet, wooden raiser blocks under
> my bed and chair. (One nifty device was a short rope ladder that
> attached to the end of bed to enable me to pull myself up). All the bits
> and bobs they supplied are on loan. Among their safety checks was one to
> ensure that the water temperature of the downstairs shower was stable.
> They ran the shower while flushing the loos in the downstairs and
> upstairs bathrooms.
>
> Stroke support units provide an invaluable service in getting long term
> patients out of expensive bed-blocking hospital care and into the
> community. My on-going needs are minimal -- a weekly visit by the nurse
> was deemed sufficient. This is because I have a loving wife who provides
> wonderful care, but many lone people are less fortunate than myself --
> they rely on twice daily visits by the stroke support team to get them
> up and dressed, and to put them to bed. It's true the service is free.
> It was offered. The team members are experts in their respective fields,
> and it would be foolish and churlish to refuse such help.
>
> On the advice of the team, the Red Cross Supplies Unit in Godalming
> loaned me a wheelchair for two months. I'm a big bloke therefore it was
> sensible to let them select a suitable wheelchair for me from their huge
> stock and make sure it was safe. I could've easily spent GBP500 plus on
> buying a wheelchair which may have been unsuitable. The chair will be
> returned with a donation.
>
> I suggest you do some research to compare the cost of keeping a stroke
> patient in hospital or providing a home support team who can keep
> several patients at home. Your insinuation that I received help based on
> wealth is, like so many of your vicious assertions about me, wildly
> untrue.
>
> You went on to say:
>
> He got bloody huge tax breaks under Maggie Thatcher, Oh yes, he
> did! But will he or any of the dirty tax dodgers ever consider
> repaying wot they owe their country? OH, NO THEY WON'T!!!! Cos
> they're thieving bar stewards the lost of them.
>
> As did many tax-payers when Nigel Lawson pulled his extraordinary tax
> cut rabbits out of the hat. Your insinuation that I'm a tax dodger and
> won't consider repaying what I owe is absurd on all counts and
> demonstrates your total inability to do even a modicum of research
> before blazing away with a barrage of untruths. For one thing I'm not a
> tax dodger and never have been. Nor have I ever been accused of
> tax-dodging. All my tax demands are paid promptly when OKed by my
> accountant. The repaying obligation of which you speak is a figment of
> your imagination. A little research will reveal that there never was any
> retrospective tax on tax payers as a result of cuts in income tax under
> Nigel Lawson. Only in your strange, hate-filled world could people be
> considered 'thieving' for not paying tax demands they've never received
> or ever likely to receive.
>
> A tip. I suggest you make an effort to end your strange obsession with
> me. There's just enough of my life to go around for me; I promise you
> it's not worth sharing. You'd be better off seeking your own. Also
> you've had your year's supply of courteous replies from me.
>
> Good luck and best wishes
>
> --
> James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
> http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com


JF why waste your valuable time even replying to ****ybaws,?
G
>

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:40:03 -0000, "Amethyst Deceiver"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>JF wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Wim Jay
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>
>>> Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
>>> speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of
>>> his friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for the
>>> description fits him to a 'T'.
>>
>> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
>> unfounded smeers and sneers. I can't possibly be a friend of the poor
>> chap because he's dead.
>
>David Irving? When did that happen?

It hasn't, David Irving is still, I believe, doing time
in Austria for speaking the truth.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

"Steve Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news%[email protected]...
>
> "GMK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "JF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Wim Jay
>>> <[email protected]> writes
> <snip>
>>> A tip. I suggest you make an effort to end your strange obsession with
>>> me. There's just enough of my life to go around for me; I promise you
>>> it's not worth sharing. You'd be better off seeking your own. Also
>>> you've had your year's supply of courteous replies from me.
>>>
>>> Good luck and best wishes
>>> James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
>>> http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com
>>
>> JF why waste your valuable time even replying to ****ybaws,?
>> G
>>
> Exactly what I was thinking, but i suspect his post is for the benefit
> of the sane members of the group rather than the rest
>
> Steve Terry
>Having said that I always enjoy reading JF's educated and eloquent prose,it
>makes such a change from my own ****e.
>G

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:54:46 -0800, "Skitt" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jim Watt wrote:
>> "Amethyst Deceiver" wrote:
>>> JF wrote:
>>>> Wim Jay writes
>
>>>>> Did you know Follett is a "friend" of a certain "well known, German
>>>>> speaking, controvertial historian" [Follett's *own* description of
>>>>> his friend] and I presume this to be a certain David Irving, for
>>>>> the description fits him to a 'T'.
>>>>
>>>> For heaven's sake do some research before rushing into print with
>>>> unfounded smeers and sneers. I can't possibly be a friend of the
>>>> poor chap because he's dead.
>>>
>>> David Irving? When did that happen?
>>
>> It hasn't, David Irving is still, I believe, doing time
>> in Austria for speaking the truth.
>
>Latest info has it that DI is alive and well in the UK (since December 20,
>2006).

Excellent.

He has a good website which he maintains himself.

Most of his books are available as .pdf which is harder for
his critics to burn.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com