uk.people.disability

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:43:09 -0700, "Theo_Delight@ "
wrote:

>On 2 Oct, 12:50, judith wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:26:04 -0700, "Theo_Deli...@ "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >On 2 Oct, 10:58, "The Todal" wrote:
>> >> wrote in message
>> >>news: @ ...
>> >> > On 2 Oct, 09:18, "The Todal" wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:vhm3g39vtf39a4fradshhmp8s9jhd5b3hl@ ...
>>
>> >> >> > Is there a litigants in person society or support in London England?
>>
>> >> >> If there is, you should distrust it.
>>
>> >> >> Most people who are litigants in person have maybe two or three court
>> >> >> cases
>> >> >> in their entire lives, and therefore have no need to form a society.
>> >> >> Anyone
>> >> >> who habitually sues other people as a litigant in person, is probably
>> >> >> mentally unbalanced.
>>
>> >> > Really, Derek!
>>
>> >> > Everyone needs a hobby, even Peter Turtill!
>>
>> >> Actually, I suppose someone should conduct a survey to find out how many
>> >> people have sued or been personally sued, in the County Court.
>>
>> >> I think I'm currently on my third case, hence my rash assumption "two or
>> >> three court cases".
>>
>> >Either you are or you are not on your third case, unless you are
>> >waiting for the other party to respond.
>>
>> >Is trade in the market so bad these days that you can't afford a
>> >lawyer?
>>
>> >> I suppose it is possible that you could have quite a
>> >> few more and still be sane.
>>
>> >Yes, that may be possible; it might even be _possible_ that smicker is
>> >not the litigious loony he is otherwise reckoned to be.
>>
>> I believe that incredulity will not stretch that far.
>
>Whilst I find it barely credible that someone should use a word like
>"incredulity" without apparently having any idea what it means.
>
>Have a free clue: /incredulity

I was wanting to imply that there may be disbelief that smicker is
not a litigious loony but I could not stretch this disbelief that far.
Please can you explain where I have gone wrong.