|
Home > Archive > UK gardening > September 2006 > Re: Response from Scottish Natural Heritage
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Response from Scottish Natural Heritage
|
|
|
|
Geoff wrote:
> I'll be sending them, recorded delivery a large file on him showing
> his extremist activities on newsgroups, and elsewhere.
No you won't.
You'd gnaw your own leg off before you revealed your real name and
address, which you have to do to send something recorded delivery.
| |
|
| On 26 Sep 2006 00:46:46 -0700, "Mark" <mark_etheridge@volcanomail.com>
wrote:
>
>Geoff wrote:
>
>No you won't.
>You'd gnaw your own leg off before you revealed your real name and
>address, which you have to do to send something recorded delivery.
Already done.
Perhaps you'd like to come round so that I may gnaw your head off?
Poof.
| |
|
| On 26 Sep 2006 00:46:46 -0700, "Mark" <mark_etheridge@volcanomail.com>
wrote:
>
>Geoff wrote:
>
>No you won't.
>You'd gnaw your own leg off before you revealed your real name and
>address, which you have to do to send something recorded delivery.
Send me your address and I'll arrange for you to receive a copy?
Don't go all chicken on us, you slimy little worm!
| |
|
|
"Mark" <mark_etheridge@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1159256806.683036.151850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Geoff wrote:
>
> No you won't.
> You'd gnaw your own leg off before you revealed your real name and
> address, which you have to do to send something recorded delivery.
>
No, actually, you don't have to reveal your own name and address, the
counter clerk does not check to see whether the sender's name and address
supplied is genuine or accurate. You could still check on delivery via the
internet, so none of the functionality of the service would be lost by use
of an incorrect sender's name and address, unless the package had to be
'returned to sender' if undeliverable.
The letter inside the Recorded Delivery package would probably have to bear
a credible name and address, however, for the recipient to take it
seriously, especially if a reply were wanted.
| |
|
| On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:10:51 +0100, "BAC"
<casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark" <mark_etheridge@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
>news:1159256806.683036.151850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>No, actually, you don't have to reveal your own name and address, the
>counter clerk does not check to see whether the sender's name and address
>supplied is genuine or accurate. You could still check on delivery via the
>internet, so none of the functionality of the service would be lost by use
>of an incorrect sender's name and address, unless the package had to be
>'returned to sender' if undeliverable.
Please don't educate the village idiots. Since when has the truth got
in their way!
>The letter inside the Recorded Delivery package would probably have to bear
>a credible name and address, however, for the recipient to take it
>seriously, especially if a reply were wanted.
Bearing in mind the precedent set by the Woodland Trust, whereby they,
or their employees provided names and addresses's (incorrectly as it
subsequently happened) of it's members, who had concerns for animal
welfare. Which subsequently, apparently, involved petrol bombing an
OAP bungalow. In a case of mistaken identity. A conspiracy which both
Mabbett and Ogilvie were party to.
I'm sure, in the light of this information, it would be understandable
to keep their name and address secret.
It will be interesting to see what information *fed* to SNH, and
others, subsequently, or not, comes out in the extremists attacks
here.
We'll see. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|