> Doug wrote:

>> On 12 Sep, 08:59, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Doug wrote:

>>>> Only if you can show that I am causing a greater harm than your
>>>> brick, which would be extremely difficult if you are a motorist
>>>> causing more harm than me by driving to my house.

>

>>> So you'll be happy to have a brick through your window as long as the
>>> perpetrator gets there on foot or bicycle?

>

>> Why are you still having reading problems?

>
> So that a "Bugger, I hadn't thought of that" is it?

> On 12 Sep, 17:48, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> Doug wrote:

>>> On 12 Sep, 08:59, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> Doug wrote:

>>>>> Only if you can show that I am causing a greater harm than your
>>>>> brick, which would be extremely difficult if you are a motorist
>>>>> causing more harm than me by driving to my house.

>>

>>>> So you'll be happy to have a brick through your window as long as
>>>> the perpetrator gets there on foot or bicycle?

>>

>>> Why are you still having reading problems?

>>
>> So that a "Bugger, I hadn't thought of that" is it?

>
> He'll accuse you of "using semantics" next.

> BrianW wrote:

>> On 12 Sep, 17:48, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Doug wrote:

>>>> On 12 Sep, 08:59, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>> Doug wrote:

>>>>>> Only if you can show that I am causing a greater harm than your
>>>>>> brick, which would be extremely difficult if you are a motorist
>>>>>> causing more harm than me by driving to my house.

>

>>>>> So you'll be happy to have a brick through your window as long as
>>>>> the perpetrator gets there on foot or bicycle?

>

>>>> Why are you still having reading problems?

>

>>> So that a "Bugger, I hadn't thought of that" is it?

>

>> He'll accuse you of "using semantics" next.

>
> Does he do that when he's caught out? ...