Attn. Jon. Line 3 too long.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:k%9Za.4178$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:SP9Za.4164$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>>"The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> >>>meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> >>>the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> >>>hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> >>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
> >>
> >>The moral issue isn't about counting, asshole.
> >
> > I know that, oh so very well,
>
> You don't.
You know that I do. Playing the counting game gives
every vegan who knows what they're doing a bit of
a holiday here against you twerps. You'd be better
off using a much different approach against us - you
know, a rights based one. Pity.
> You keep trying to redirect the focus, just as you do
> with the slavery issue.
>
I sometimes use *your* CD argument to get a bit of
a breather, that's all.
> I set the rules, Derek, not you.
>
No, you don't, but even though you think you do,
I have a talent for making you regret having made
them. You aren't so smart, Jon, not now I know
you need to rely on outright lying to fend me off.
Jonathan Ball
> What's with these messages that refuse to forward on to my fucking server?
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:k%9Za.4178$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:SP9Za.4164$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>>>>>meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>>>>>the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>>>>>hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>>>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>>>>
>>>>The moral issue isn't about counting, asshole.
>>>
>>>I know that, oh so very well,
>>
>>You don't.
>
>
> You know that I do.
We all know that it isn't really about counting.
>
>
>>You keep trying to redirect the focus, just as you do
>>with the slavery issue.
>>
>
> I sometimes use *your* CD argument to get a bit of
> a breather, that's all.
>
>
>>I set the rules, Derek, not you.
>>
>
> No, you don't,
I set the rules for you, Dreck.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
The sad fact is Derek - he actually believes this, poor old sod. See what
you have done to him!
Derek
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:x_eZa.8844$yl6...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:VIcZa.4412$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> The sad fact is Derek - he actually believes this, poor old sod.
True. Every now and again he has to say it aloud
to convince himself and keep the delusion alive.
> See what you have done to him!
>
I agree, but most of it is his own doing; self inflicted.
He crippled himself by taking on too much of a load
history fooled him into believing he could easily cope
with.
Anyway, tomorrow's the big day, so I'll be off for a
while. See you when I get back.
Ray
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bh500d$t8l6c$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
Dutch
Getting a brain transplant I hope...
Ray
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vjd3iuc...@news.supernews.com...
Yeah, could be.
~~jonnie can have his old one:-)
>
>
usual suspect
>>>Hope everything goes ok Derek.
>>
>>Getting a brain transplant I hope...
>
> Yeah, could be.
> ~~jonnie can have his old one:-)
The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
work. Truly a case of lose it or use it.
Jonathan Ball
> Ray wrote:
>
>>>> Hope everything goes ok Derek.
>>>
>>>
>>> Getting a brain transplant I hope...
>>
>>
>> Yeah, could be.
>> ~~jonnie can have his old one:-)
>
>
> The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
> work.
It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
engine block without a hoist.
> Truly a case of lose it or use it.
Truly a case of a pinto bean masquerading as a brain.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:84XZa.7707$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> usual suspect wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >>>> Hope everything goes ok Derek.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Getting a brain transplant I hope...
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, could be.
> >> ~~jonnie can have his old one:-)
> >
> >
> > The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
> > work.
>
> It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
> engine block without a hoist.
>
Jonathan Ball
The temperature didn't matter. You have a pinto bean
for a brain. You do stupid things.
usual suspect
>>>>>Getting a brain transplant I hope...
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, could be.
>>>>~~jonnie can have his old one:-)
>>>
>>>The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
>>>work.
>>
>>It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
>>engine block without a hoist.
>
> It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sH%Za.8257$M6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:84XZa.7707$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
> >>>work.
> >>
> >>It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
> >>engine block without a hoist.
> >
> > It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>
> The temperature didn't matter.
And you'd know, right, Jon girlie hands? You
wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
it out from a family saloon with your bare hands
and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
gob and no gristle.
> You have a pinto bean for a brain.
Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
slant to your claim of "a vegan's wierd search
for micrograms."
> You do stupid things.
>
"did". Past tense.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:sn7_a.158070$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
make excuses.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sH%Za.8257$M6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:84XZa.7707$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>>>>The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
>>>>>work.
>>>>
>>>>It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
>>>>engine block without a hoist.
>>>
>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>
>>The temperature didn't matter.
>
>
> And you'd know, right, Jon
Yep. I *do* know, you lying self-pitying fuck. You
didn't show up at work and immediately decide to lift
that engine block.
> You wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
once, and I once did a complete brake job on my Nissan
pick-up truck. Those were a long time ago, though.
Nowadays, I hire that thing done, by garages employing
dumb semi-skilled pseudo-toughs like you.
> let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
> it out from a family saloon
Get off it, dummy. We established long ago that it was
only the engine *block*, and it was a little
four-cylinder putt-putt at that.
> with your bare hands
> and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
> gob and no gristle.
>
>
>>You have a pinto bean for a brain.
>
>
> Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
> search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
> slant to your claim of "a vegan's wierd search
> for micrograms."
You lose every time out, Dreck. I play with you as a
cat plays with a baby mouse.
>
>
>>You do stupid things.
>>
>
> "did". Past tense.
Still do, you dumb fat ignorant fuck. Among other
stupid things you do, you try to "debate" with people
far smarter *and* more intelligent than you. Why don't
you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
you'd have better success.
Jonathan Ball
Your entire life is one whiny excuse after another.
usual suspect
>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>
>>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
>>
>
> No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
> make excuses.
You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
engaging the ol' back. Now neither works. So how did you get bluefoot?
Lotta Laughs
Did you forget you had put the pistons back in?
Jonathan Ball
He *hadn't* put them back in. They were out, so he
could slide his own tool into the cylinders. Wifey cut
him off, see...
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:X_7_a.158152$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> >>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>
> >>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
> >
> > No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
> > make excuses.
>
> You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
> Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
> engaging the ol' back.
No, they were reasons, not excuses.
> Now neither works.
My mind is clear and sharper now than it ever was.
> So how did you get bluefoot?
>
I gradually built up too much bone after my first
spinal fusion and developed spinal stenosis.
Something or other was trapped, and a sequelae
of that was giving me chronic pain in my leg and
foot, turning it a bluish colour. My second
fusion last year seems to have brought some
colour back to it, but the pain in it isn't likely
to ever go.
usual suspect
>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>>>
>>>>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
>>>
>>>No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
>>>make excuses.
>>
>>You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
>>Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
>>engaging the ol' back.
>
> No, they were reasons, not excuses.
*Excuses*, and not very good ones.
>>Now neither works.
>
> My mind is clear and sharper now than it ever was.
Which doesn't say very much for it *before* your problems, does it.
>>So how did you get bluefoot?
>
> I gradually built up too much bone after my first
> spinal fusion and developed spinal stenosis.
> Something or other was trapped, and a sequelae
> of that was giving me chronic pain in my leg and
> foot, turning it a bluish colour. My second
> fusion last year seems to have brought some
> colour back to it, but the pain in it isn't likely
> to ever go.
How many of your vertebrae have been fused? Losing some weight would
reduce the severity of your stenosis (which is usually treated with
fusion rather than caused by it) and take a lot of the load off your
spine. That's usually the very first thing back specialists here recommend.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:2Y7_a.8693$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sH%Za.8257$M6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:84XZa.7707$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>>>>The old one's hardly even been used. Then again, it barely seems to
> >>>>>work.
> >>>>
> >>>>It worked well enough for Dreck to think to pick up an
> >>>>engine block without a hoist.
> >>>
> >>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>
> >>The temperature didn't matter.
> >
> > And you'd know, right, Jon
>
> Yep. I *do* know, you lying self-pitying fuck. You
> didn't show up at work and immediately decide to lift
> that engine block.
>
job of that day, IIRC.
> > You wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
>
> Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
> once,
You can't even spell one right, let alone service
one.
> and I once did a complete brake job on my Nissan
> pick-up truck.
You bled the brakes?
> Those were a long time ago, though.
> Nowadays, I hire that thing done, by garages employing
> dumb semi-skilled pseudo-toughs like you.
>
I'm a fully skilled vehicle electrician with all my
certs to prove it.
> > let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
> > it out from a family saloon
>
> Get off it, dummy. We established long ago that it was
> only the engine *block*, and it was a little
> four-cylinder putt-putt at that.
>
Well, it was big enough for me that day, and much
too big for you on any day, weed.
> > with your bare hands
> > and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
> > gob and no gristle.
> >
> >
> >>You have a pinto bean for a brain.
> >
> >
> > Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
> > search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
> > slant to your claim of "a vegan's wierd search
> > for micrograms."
>
> You lose every time out, Dreck. I play with you as a
> cat plays with a baby mouse.
>
That's just plain daft. You're deluded. You've a big
mouth, that's all, and anyone can shout a load of
nothing.
> >
> >>You do stupid things.
> >
> > "did". Past tense.
>
> Still do, you dumb fat ignorant fuck. Among other
> stupid things you do, you try to "debate" with people
> far smarter *and* more intelligent than you.
You don't debate. You lie and ignore any evidence
put before you to proves you wrong, and that's miles
away from what I would call a debate. Troll, more
like, but not debate.
> Why don't
> you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
> you'd have better success.
>
Your army are a bunch of wankers.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>once,
>
> You can't even spell one right, let alone service
> one.
We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R, you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R. Your lot
have mastered the art of extra letters in words: color, neighbor, etc.
You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
<snip>
>>Why don't
>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
>>you'd have better success.
>
> Your army are a bunch of wankers.
They work for a living; you sit at home after waddling down to the chip
and betting shops.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:X_7_a.158152$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>>>
>>>>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
>>>
>>>No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
>>>make excuses.
>>
>>You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
>>Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
>>engaging the ol' back.
>
>
> No, they were reasons, not excuses.
They were and remain excuses. A reason would have
been, "I was stupid, and attempted to lift something I
had NO FUCKING BUSINESS trying to lift, and thus I
injured myself based on nothing more than my OWN
STUPIDITY." THAT would have been a reason, Dreck.
Instead, you gave us excuses. "It was tooooooo cold!
<whine> I wasn't reaaaaaaaaaaaady. <whine>"
>
>
>>Now neither works.
>
>
> My mind is clear and sharper now than it ever was.
Wow. Then you were all but comatose before.
>
>
>>So how did you get bluefoot?
>>
>
[snip medical horseshit]
You got "bluefoot" from plopping your squishy lard ass
down on the sofa all fucking day long and watching bad
television.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:bL8_a.158574$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
> >>>
> >>>No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
> >>>make excuses.
> >>
> >>You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
> >>Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
> >>engaging the ol' back.
> >
> > No, they were reasons, not excuses.
>
> *Excuses*, and not very good ones.
>
> >>Now neither works.
> >
> > My mind is clear and sharper now than it ever was.
>
> Which doesn't say very much for it *before* your problems, does it.
>
> >>So how did you get bluefoot?
> >
> > I gradually built up too much bone after my first
> > spinal fusion and developed spinal stenosis.
> > Something or other was trapped, and a sequelae
> > of that was giving me chronic pain in my leg and
> > foot, turning it a bluish colour. My second
> > fusion last year seems to have brought some
> > colour back to it, but the pain in it isn't likely
> > to ever go.
>
> How many of your vertebrae have been fused?
L3, L4, L5, and L5 was fused to the sacrum. The
second fusion included L2 and a re-break of L3.
> Losing some weight would
> reduce the severity of your stenosis (which is usually treated with
> fusion rather than caused by it) and take a lot of the load off your
> spine. That's usually the very first thing back specialists here recommend.
>
When I want your advice I'll ask for it.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:2Y7_a.8693$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
Two excuses.
>>>>
>>>>The temperature didn't matter.
>>>
>>>And you'd know, right, Jon
>>
>>Yep. I *do* know, you lying self-pitying fuck. You
>>didn't show up at work and immediately decide to lift
>>that engine block.
>>
>
> That's exactly how it happened. It was the first
> job of that day, IIRC.
You don't remember correctly. In fact, you are
deliberately lying.
>
>
>>>You wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
>>
>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>once,
>
>
> You can't even spell one right,
That's how it's spelled here.
> let alone service one.
I did it. My university roommate remembers it well. I
had the parts spread all over the kitchen table in our
apartment. He thought the car would never run again.
In the event, it purred like a kitten after I was finished.
>
>
>>and I once did a complete brake job on my Nissan
>>pick-up truck.
>
>
> You bled the brakes?
Much, much more than that, dummy. I replaced the brake
shoes (drum brakes all around in those days), honed out
one of the slave cylinders, bled the line. That pickup
truck would stop on a 10p coin and give you nine
pennies change.
>
>
>> Those were a long time ago, though.
>>Nowadays, I hire that thing done, by garages employing
>>dumb semi-skilled pseudo-toughs like you.
>>
>
> I'm a fully skilled vehicle electrician with all my
> certs to prove it.
You're a plodding, technically semi-competent but
unthinking brute.
>
>
>>>let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
>>>it out from a family saloon
>>
>>Get off it, dummy. We established long ago that it was
>>only the engine *block*, and it was a little
>>four-cylinder putt-putt at that.
>>
>
> Well, it was big enough for me that day,
Way, WAY too big, dummy. But not as big as you first
pretended. You originally pretended it was the whole
engine. I caught you lying, hardly for the first time.
> and much too big for you on any day, weed.
Probably. The difference is, I have and always had the
sense to know. Your tiny pinto bean brain, and your
boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
than you were.
>
>
>>>with your bare hands
>>>and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
>>>gob and no gristle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You have a pinto bean for a brain.
>>>
>>>
>>>Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
>>>search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
>>>slant to your claim of "a vegan's wierd search
>>>for micrograms."
>>
>>You lose every time out, Dreck. I play with you as a
>>cat plays with a baby mouse.
>>
>
> That's just plain daft.
Nope. It's the sad fact of life for you, mousie.
>
>>>>You do stupid things.
>>>
>>>"did". Past tense.
>>
>>Still do, you dumb fat ignorant fuck. Among other
>>stupid things you do, you try to "debate" with people
>>far smarter *and* more intelligent than you.
>
>
> You don't debate.
I do; successfully.
>
>>Why don't
>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
>>you'd have better success.
>>
>
> Your army are a bunch of wankers.
Uh-huh. One of our divisions could dust an entire
British corps, and be home for cocktails by early evening.
Anyway, that's not the point. You simply can't debate.
Jonathan Ball
> Derek wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>> once,
>>
>>
>> You can't even spell one right, let alone service
>> one.
>
>
> We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R, you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R. Your lot
> have mastered the art of extra letters in words: color, neighbor, etc.
> You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
Nor "pasta". The Canucks aren't any better.
It cracked me up when I lived in Germany. We worked in
a town called Wasserburg, which the Germans pronounce
VAH-ser-burg. The stupid self-important Brits didn't
even *try* to use the correct pronunciation. It came
out WAA-ser-berg, with the 'a' like that in 'hat', and
the 'w' as in English.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Why don't
>>> you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
>>> you'd have better success.
>>
>>
>> Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>
>
> They work for a living; you sit at home after waddling down to the chip
> and betting shops.
And the licensed premises, don't forget.
I can just see Dreck waddling down the way, dragging
his gangrenous bluefoot along...
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:n19_a.8796$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:X_7_a.158152$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is that an excuse for your injury or for your absence of thought?
> >>>
> >>>No, not an excuse, but rather a reason instead. I don't
> >>>make excuses.
> >>
> >>You just made two excuses: cold weather and your lack of preparation.
> >>Lack of preparation means you failed to engage the ol' brain before
> >>engaging the ol' back.
> >
> > No, they were reasons, not excuses.
>
> They were and remain excuses. A reason would have
> been, "I was stupid, and attempted to lift something I
> had NO FUCKING BUSINESS trying to lift, and thus I
> injured myself based on nothing more than my OWN
> STUPIDITY." THAT would have been a reason, Dreck.
>
"Did I intend to break my own back? No, I was
stupid and used seat belt webbing to remove an engine on my
own. I didn't blame the garage owner who's responsibility it was
to provide lifting equipment, I took full responsibility for my own
actions and in no way consider my injuries an accident."
firstoftwins Date: 2001-11-13
Jonathan Ball
Which he DID provide, and which you STUPIDLY elected
not to use, because your bloated ego made you want to
demonstrate to "the lads" just how big and tough you are.
> I took full responsibility for my own
> actions and in no way consider my injuries an accident.
That's good, because they certainly are NOT the results
of an accident in the usual and legitimate sense of the
word.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <..>
>
>>> Is this close enough ( below)?
>>> Did I intend to break my own back? No, I was
>>> stupid and used seat belt webbing to remove an engine on my
>>> own. I didn't blame the garage owner who's responsibility it was
>>> to provide lifting equipment,
>>
>>
>> Which he DID provide, and which you STUPIDLY elected not to use,
>> because your bloated ego made you want to demonstrate to "the lads"
>> just how big and tough you are.
>
>
Perhaps, although I would bet money Dreck the brute
provoked the dare by bragging how strong he was.
usual suspect
<..>
>> Is this close enough ( below)?
>> Did I intend to break my own back? No, I was
>> stupid and used seat belt webbing to remove an engine on my
>> own. I didn't blame the garage owner who's responsibility it was
>> to provide lifting equipment,
>
> Which he DID provide, and which you STUPIDLY elected not to use, because
> your bloated ego made you want to demonstrate to "the lads" just how big
> and tough you are.
Wasn't this feat of brute strength done on a dare?
<snip>
usual suspect
Sounds like a reasonable bet to me. He *still* does that, only now he
tries using his brain with the same tragic consequences. It doesn't
matter whether it's CDs and responsibility, feed:beef, child slavery, or
car engines: he always bites off more than he can chew.
Jonathan Ball
With typically horrible British teeth, he can't chew
much of anything.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>>>> Is this close enough ( below)?
>>>>> Did I intend to break my own back? No, I was
>>>>> stupid and used seat belt webbing to remove an engine on my
>>>>> own. I didn't blame the garage owner who's responsibility it was
>>>>> to provide lifting equipment,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which he DID provide, and which you STUPIDLY elected not to use,
>>>> because your bloated ego made you want to demonstrate to "the lads"
>>>> just how big and tough you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wasn't this feat of brute strength done on a dare?
>>
>>
>> Perhaps, although I would bet money Dreck the brute provoked the dare
>> by bragging how strong he was.
>
>
> Sounds like a reasonable bet to me. He *still* does that, only now he
> tries using his brain
pinto bean
> with the same tragic consequences. It doesn't
> matter whether it's CDs and responsibility, feed:beef, child slavery, or
> car engines: he always bites off more than he can chew.
I'd have loved to hear him running his mouth down at
the garage about everything under the sun. Well, maybe
for about 10-15 minutes, anyway.
Note his language concerning his insincere admission of
responsibility for his crippling. First was the
implied shift of blame to the garage owner ("who's
[sic] responsibility it was to provide lifting
equipment"). Then it was the weather. Then it was his
lack of being warmed up (as if anyone or anything
*prevented* him from warming up.) ANYTHING except dumb
fat fuck Dreck himself, first and only, who STUPIDLY
attempted to do something he had no business doing in
any weather, warmed up or no.
This is Dreck and his family's lifelong failure: an
inability to admit responsibility, while always looking
for an opportunity to point the finger at someone,
anyone, else.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Cc9_a.8838$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> lying Shit4braincell wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:2Y7_a.8693$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>
> Two excuses.
>
> >>>>
> >>>>The temperature didn't matter.
> >>>
> >>>And you'd know, right, Jon
> >>
> >>Yep. I *do* know, you lying self-pitying fuck. You
> >>didn't show up at work and immediately decide to lift
> >>that engine block.
> >
> > That's exactly how it happened. It was the first
> > job of that day, IIRC.
>
> You don't remember correctly.
I remember everything correctly, and always have.
> In fact, you are deliberately lying.
>
About what, exactly?
> >
> >>>You wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
> >>
> >>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
> >>once,
> >
> > You can't even spell one right,
>
> That's how it's spelled here.
>
Yes, wrongly.
> > let alone service one.
>
> I did it. My university roommate remembers it well.
I don't doubt he remembers every ghastly day of your
rooming together. The poor man surely failed his
subject and has you to blame for it.
> I
> had the parts spread all over the kitchen table in our
> apartment. He thought the car would never run again.
> In the event, it purred like a kitten after I was finished.
>
Yeah, running as rich as fuck, most probably. Did you
check your carbon emissions while it was choking like
a dog, Jon?
> >
> >>and I once did a complete brake job on my Nissan
> >>pick-up truck.
> >
> > You bled the brakes?
>
> Much, much more than that, dummy. I replaced the brake
> shoes (drum brakes all around in those days),
The book time for replacing shoes all round is 1.2 hours.
Slave cylinders are simply replaced at 0.3 of an hour each.
The whole job should've taken about an hour and a half,
including the bleed.
> honed out one of the slave cylinders,
What a waste of time.
> bled the line.
Have you ever tried leaving a saucer-full of brake
fluid overnight?
> That pickup truck would stop on a 10p coin and
> give you nine pennies change.
>
Grabbing a bit, were they? You should've paid a
professional to do it.
> >
> >> Those were a long time ago, though.
> >>Nowadays, I hire that thing done, by garages employing
> >>dumb semi-skilled pseudo-toughs like you.
> >
> > I'm a fully skilled vehicle electrician with all my
> > certs to prove it.
>
> You're a plodding, technically semi-competent but
> unthinking brute.
>
I'm a fully competent expert in Ford engine management
systems, and have all the required extra certs from
Daventry to prove it. You can't knock me there, Jonnie.
> >
> >>>let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
> >>>it out from a family saloon
> >>
> >>Get off it, dummy. We established long ago that it was
> >>only the engine *block*, and it was a little
> >>four-cylinder putt-putt at that.
> >
> > Well, it was big enough for me that day,
>
> Way, WAY too big, dummy.
No. Normally, it would've been routine. I've
done dozens before.
> But not as big as you first pretended. You originally
> pretended it was the whole engine.
Only the top end is removed, leaving the block, pistons,
crank, flywheel and clutch assy. in place. It's then jiggled
off the mainshaft splines from the gearbox and away out
of the engine bay. You wouldn't manage it, that's for sure.
It's more common than what people think, though most
fitters are the weedy meatarian types and can't do it.
> I caught you lying, hardly for the first time.
>
You'll never catch me lying.
> > and much too big for you on any day, weed.
>
> Probably. The difference is, I have and always had the
> sense to know.
No. The difference is, you have, and always have
had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
working-class Brit: hard as nails.
> Your tiny pinto
I find your use of the word "pinto" too coincidental
for comfort in this conversation, seeing as it was a
2 litre SOHC pinto engine that gave me all the trouble
in the first place. It may be that your mind reading
skills are quite real afterall.
> bean brain, and your
> boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
> than you were.
>
Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
> >
> >>>with your bare hands
> >>>and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
> >>>gob and no gristle.
> >>>
> >>>>You have a pinto bean for a brain.
> >>>
> >>>Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
> >>>search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
> >>>slant to your claim of "a vegan's weird search
> >>>for micrograms."
> >>
> >>You lose every time out, Derek. I play with you as a
> >>cat plays with a baby mouse.
> >
> > That's just plain daft.
>
> Nope. It's the sad fact of life for you, mousie.
>
Wanker.
> >
> >>>>You do stupid things.
> >>>
> >>>"did". Past tense.
> >>
> >>Still do, you dumb fat ignorant fuck. Among other
> >>stupid things you do, you try to "debate" with people
> >>far smarter *and* more intelligent than you.
> >
> > You don't debate.
>
> I do; successfully.
>
You don't.
> >
> >>Why don't
> >>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
> >>you'd have better success.
> >
> > Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>
> Uh-huh. One of our divisions could dust an entire
> British corps, and be home for cocktails by early evening.
>
Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
a British corps. American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
> Anyway, that's not the point. You simply can't debate.
>
The debate is over and in my favour. That's what's
leading you to think that.
usual suspect
>>>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>
>>Two excuses.
>
> Two good reasons, not excuses.
Two sorry excuses.
<snip>
>>>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>>>once,
>>>
>>>You can't even spell one right,
>>
>>That's how it's spelled here.
>
> Yes, wrongly.
"Carburetor" is correct, unless you're messing about with Amals or other
obscure British-made parts. Go look at Mikuni's sites -- carburetors,
even in Europe.
http://www.mikuni.de/products.html
http://www.mikuni.com/
<snip>
> No. The difference is, you have, and always have
> had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
> brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
> working-class Brit: hard as nails.
...and dumb as rocks.
>>Your tiny pinto
>
> I find your use of the word "pinto" too coincidental
> for comfort in this conversation, seeing as it was a
> 2 litre SOHC pinto engine that gave me all the trouble
> in the first place. It may be that your mind reading
> skills are quite real afterall.
Fully assembled Pinto 2 liter engines weigh about 400 pounds. No wonder
it gave you trouble, Hercules.
>>bean brain, and your
>>boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
>>than you were.
>
> Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
Not anymore.
<snip>
> Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
> even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
> a British corps. American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
We've kicked your asses in two wars (1776, 1812) and saved your nuts in
two others (WWI, WWII).
<snip>
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:o0a_a.8946$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Both hoists were out of action, and had been for
quite a while, as I've told you before. It would've
been easy to produce the repair dockets to a solli.
I suppose that if I were living and working in your
compo-mad wank rag of a country I might've been
more inclined to sue, seeing as the job was taken
on by the garage manager in the full knowledge of
not having any lifting equipment to remove the engine,
but I didn't, to my moral credit, even though I was
advised to at the time. It's all about taking responsibility
for one's own actions, Jon.
> because your bloated ego made you want to
> demonstrate to "the lads" just how big and tough you are.
>
That's partly true. Anyone who knows me personally
would testify and say I'm a show-off.
> > I took full responsibility for my own
> > actions and in no way consider my injuries an accident.
>
> That's good
Thankyou. I'm glad you've finally seen some good
in me.
> because they certainly are NOT the results
> of an accident
Exactly. I don't believe in such a thing as an 'accident'.
There's always someone to praise or blame for an
incident or event, and sometimes that candidate will
be yourself. Moral judgment will tell you when, if you
have any.
> in the usual and legitimate sense of the
> word.
>
As far as human actions go, I don't believe a person
has had or been involved in an 'accident'. A person
causing an 'accident' is taking a chance based on his
calculations of the odds in getting away with it. He
takes a risk and loses, *this time.*
A victim of an 'accident' is always the victim of
another's wilful negligence. The 'accident' prone are
ALWAYS very sloppy and careLESS individuals
who'll take those odds to avoid extra work, but
because most of us have been 'accident' prone at
some time or other in our lives, we let culprits off
the hook by saying, "Well, it could've happened
to any of us; we're only human." It stinks.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:Lzs_a.157316$TJ.94...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>
> >>Two excuses.
> >
> > Two good reasons, not excuses.
>
> Two sorry excuses.
>
1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise
or occurrence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
> <snip>
> >>>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
> >>>>once,
> >>>
> >>>You can't even spell one right,
> >>
> >>That's how it's spelled here.
> >
> > Yes, wrongly.
>
> "Carburetor" is correct, unless you're messing about with Amals or other
> obscure British-made parts. Go look at Mikuni's sites -- carburetors,
> even in Europe.
>
> http://www.mikuni.de/products.html
> http://www.mikuni.com/
>
And
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=carburettor
I always spell it with two t's.
> <snip>
> > No. The difference is, you have, and always have
> > had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
> > brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
> > working-class Brit: hard as nails.
>
> ...and dumb as rocks.
>
Hardly. The average working class Brit is as sharp
as a tack and inventive.
> >>Your tiny pinto
> >
> > I find your use of the word "pinto" too coincidental
> > for comfort in this conversation, seeing as it was a
> > 2 litre SOHC pinto engine that gave me all the trouble
> > in the first place. It may be that your mind reading
> > skills are quite real afterall.
>
> Fully assembled Pinto 2 liter engines weigh about 400 pounds. No wonder
> it gave you trouble, Hercules.
>
That sounds a bit heavy, but I wouldn't be surprised
if it weighed a good 250-300 with the head off. It's
not as if I had to shoulder press the damn thing, but
merely to lift it up and out of the engine bay.
> >>bean brain, and your
> >>boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
> >>than you were.
> >
> > Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
>
> Not anymore.
>
Just as before.
> <snip>
> > Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
> > even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
> > a British corps. American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
>
> We've kicked your asses in two wars (1776, 1812) and saved your nuts in
> two others (WWI, WWII).
>
Poofs.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Cc9_a.8838$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>
>>Two excuses.
>>
>
> Two good reasons, not excuses.
Excuses. We can all see that they're excuses.
>
>>>>>>The temperature didn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you'd know, right, Jon
>>>>
>>>>Yep. I *do* know, you lying self-pitying fuck. You
>>>>didn't show up at work and immediately decide to lift
>>>>that engine block.
>>>
>>>That's exactly how it happened. It was the first
>>>job of that day, IIRC.
>>
>>You don't remember correctly.
>
>
> I remember everything correctly, and always have.
You don't remember correctly.
>
>
>>In fact, you are deliberately lying.
>>
>
> About what, exactly?
>
>>>>>You wouldn't be able to change 'suspect's' front wheel,
>>>>
>>>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>>>once,
>>>
>>>You can't even spell one right,
>>
>>That's how it's spelled here.
>>
>
> Yes, wrongly.
No. Correctly.
>
>
>>>let alone service one.
>>
>>I did it. My university roommate remembers it well.
>
>
> I don't doubt he remembers every ghastly day of your
> rooming together. The poor man surely failed his
> subject and has you to blame for it.
Actually, he completed his doctorate, and is rolling in
money. He also is my best friend, and was best man at
my wedding.
>
>
>>I
>>had the parts spread all over the kitchen table in our
>>apartment. He thought the car would never run again.
>>In the event, it purred like a kitten after I was finished.
>>
>
> Yeah, running as rich as fuck, most probably.
Nope.
> Did you
> check your carbon emissions while it was choking like
> a dog, Jon?
It passed the California emissions test in effect at
that time. My gasoline mileage went up (we measure it
in miles/gallon here, so higher is better; not sure
about the UK; I know it's liters/100 km in continental
Europe.)
>
>>>>and I once did a complete brake job on my Nissan
>>>>pick-up truck.
>>>
>>>You bled the brakes?
>>
>>Much, much more than that, dummy. I replaced the brake
>>shoes (drum brakes all around in those days),
>
>
> The book time for replacing shoes all round is 1.2 hours.
> Slave cylinders are simply replaced at 0.3 of an hour each.
> The whole job should've taken about an hour and a half,
> including the bleed.
I was not trained as a mechanic. I don't recall how
long it took me, but it undoubtedly took me longer than
it would have taken a trained mechanic, for which I
offer no apology at all.
>
>
>>honed out one of the slave cylinders,
>
>
> What a waste of time.
>
>
>>bled the line.
>
>
> Have you ever tried leaving a saucer-full of brake
> fluid overnight?
No.
>
>
>> That pickup truck would stop on a 10p coin and
>>give you nine pennies change.
>>
>
> Grabbing a bit, were they?
No.
> You should've paid a professional to do it.
I didn't have the money in those days. Time rich, cash
poor.
>
>>>>Those were a long time ago, though.
>>>>Nowadays, I hire that thing done, by garages employing
>>>>dumb semi-skilled pseudo-toughs like you.
>>>
>>>I'm a fully skilled vehicle electrician with all my
>>>certs to prove it.
>>
>>You're a plodding, technically semi-competent but
>>unthinking brute.
>>
>
> I'm a fully competent expert in Ford engine management
> systems, and have all the required extra certs from
> Daventry to prove it. You can't knock me there, Jonnie.
Your certs are out of date. You haven't worked in the
field in years, and a lot has changed.
>
>>>>>let alone separate a lump from its gearbox and drag
>>>>>it out from a family saloon
>>>>
>>>>Get off it, dummy. We established long ago that it was
>>>>only the engine *block*, and it was a little
>>>>four-cylinder putt-putt at that.
>>>
>>>Well, it was big enough for me that day,
>>
>>Way, WAY too big, dummy.
>
>
> No. Normally, it would've been routine. I've
> done dozens before.
Uh-huh.
>
>
>>But not as big as you first pretended. You originally
>>pretended it was the whole engine.
>
>
> Only the top end is removed, leaving the block, pistons,
> crank, flywheel and clutch assy. in place. It's then jiggled
> off the mainshaft splines from the gearbox and away out
> of the engine bay. You wouldn't manage it, that's for sure.
> It's more common than what people think, though most
> fitters are the weedy meatarian types and can't do it.
>
>
>>I caught you lying, hardly for the first time.
>>
>
> You'll never catch me lying.
>
>
>>>and much too big for you on any day, weed.
>>
>>Probably. The difference is, I have and always had the
>>sense to know.
>
>
> No. The difference is, you have, and always have
> had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
> brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
> working-class Brit: hard as nails.
Flabby, stupid, crude and brutish. Good for cannon
fodder and as a target for social and political abuse;
not much else.
>
>
>>Your tiny pinto
>
>
> I find your use of the word "pinto" too coincidental
> for comfort in this conversation, seeing as it was a
> 2 litre SOHC pinto engine that gave me all the trouble
> in the first place. It may be that your mind reading
> skills are quite real afterall.
>
>
>>bean brain, and your
>>boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
>>than you were.
>>
>
> Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
You're a cripple.
>
>>>>>with your bare hands
>>>>>and some seat belt webbing, midget. You're all
>>>>>gob and no gristle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You have a pinto bean for a brain.
>>>>>
>>>>>Back at you, Jon. Your brain, and my fruitless
>>>>>search for a working sign of it puts a whole new
>>>>>slant to your claim of "a vegan's weird search
>>>>>for micrograms."
>>>>
>>>>You lose every time out, Derek. I play with you as a
>>>>cat plays with a baby mouse.
>>>
>>>That's just plain daft.
>>
>>Nope. It's the sad fact of life for you, mousie.
>>
>
> Wanker.
That's about all you can do.
>
>>>>>>You do stupid things.
>>>>>
>>>>>"did". Past tense.
>>>>
>>>>Still do, you dumb fat ignorant fuck. Among other
>>>>stupid things you do, you try to "debate" with people
>>>>far smarter *and* more intelligent than you.
>>>
>>>You don't debate.
>>
>>I do; successfully.
>>
>
> You don't.
I do. (Quit now; "I do" is only 4 characters,
including space; "You don't" is 9; I'll beat you hands
down).
>
>>>>Why don't
>>>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
>>>>you'd have better success.
>>>
>>>Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>>
>>Uh-huh. One of our divisions could dust an entire
>>British corps, and be home for cocktails by early evening.
>>
>
> Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
> even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
> a British corps.
17 South-Central L.A. Crips could handle all of Anfield
Stadium.
> American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
That's not what British girls were saying in the 1940s.
Jonathan Ball
Hmmm...back in my 20s, I deadlifted over 500 lb. I
wouldn't try that today, though.
>
>>> bean brain, and your
>>> boundless braggadocio, made you think you were stronger
>>> than you were.
>>
>>
>> Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
>
>
> Not anymore.
He's only talking about the glue. Dreck is knackered.
usual suspect
>>Two sorry excuses.
>
> No. Both were
> 1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
> 2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
> 3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise
> or occurrence.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
Try this one: A real or pretend reason or explanation.
Thorndike-Barnhart Comprehensive Desk Dictionary
>>"Carburetor" is correct, unless you're messing about with Amals or other
>>obscure British-made parts. Go look at Mikuni's sites -- carburetors,
>>even in Europe.
>>
>>http://www.mikuni.de/products.html
>>http://www.mikuni.com/
>
> And
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=carburettor
>
> I always spell it with two t's.
Only because you're a git. A lot of your countrymen are finally catching
up with the rest of us. I ordered a couple Amal monoblocs from a UK
dealer and he has them listed with one T -- carburetor.
>><snip>
>>
>>>No. The difference is, you have, and always have
>>>had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
>>>brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
>>>working-class Brit: hard as nails.
>>
>>...and dumb as rocks.
>
> Hardly. The average working class Brit is as sharp
> as a tack and inventive.
You have to be inventive to make-do with such shit products like
*anything* from Lucas Electrics. Did British car and motorcycle
manufacturers have *any* quality control prior to the last decade? No.
>>Fully assembled Pinto 2 liter engines weigh about 400 pounds. No wonder
>>it gave you trouble, Hercules.
>
> That sounds a bit heavy, but I wouldn't be surprised
> if it weighed a good 250-300 with the head off. It's
> not as if I had to shoulder press the damn thing, but
> merely to lift it up and out of the engine bay.
Still constitutes more than a deadlift. And I'm sure the weight is right
for a fully assembled engine.
>>>Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
>>
>>Not anymore.
>
> Just as before.
No you're not. You'd be back in a garage if you were.
>>>Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
>>>even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
>>>a British corps. American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
>>
>>We've kicked your asses in two wars (1776, 1812) and saved your nuts in
>>two others (WWI, WWII).
>
> Poofs.
A lot of women in your mum's generation would take issue with you about
that claim of pooftery. A lot of people your age have American
half-brothers and -sisters. Who knows, even you might.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Exactly. I don't believe in such a thing as an 'accident'.
> There's always someone to praise or blame for an
> incident or event, and sometimes that candidate will
> be yourself. Moral judgment will tell you when, if you
> have any.
We know already that you claim not to believe in it,
and I showed a couple of years ago that it was a
nonsense, the result of bad moral instruction by your
worthless, shiftless drunk of a father. (I remember
you offered his having occupied the position of union
shop steward as some kind of testimonial to his ability
to think through moral issues. That figured. British
unions are associations of bandits.) In that debate, I
quickly divined that you see life as, at best, a zero
sum game, but in fact you really see it as a negative
sum game.
You lost the debate then, and so naturally you lose it
before it ever starts now. Accidents happen. Bad
stuff happens for which no one is morally blameworthy
(legal responsibility is another matter altogether.)
Your fatuous insistence that someone is always to blame
is consistent with your lifelong lifelong shirking of
moral responsibility, a bad quality that was publicly
established beyond dispute years ago. You KNOW that
you always shirk moral responsibility, hence you MUST
believe that everyone else does that, too. Everyone
else is not a sociopath as you are, so your assumption
is wrong.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:jav_a.11013$M6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> lying Shit4braincell wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Cc9_a.8838$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
> >>
> >>Two excuses.
> >
> > Two good reasons, not excuses.
>
> Excuses. We can all see that they're excuses.
>
1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise
or occurrence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
> >>I did it. My university roommate remembers it well.
> >
> > I don't doubt he remembers every ghastly day of your
> > rooming together. The poor man surely failed his
> > subject and has you to blame for it.
>
> Actually, he completed his doctorate, and is rolling in
> money. He also is my best friend, and was best man at
> my wedding.
>
At the risk of using plurium interrogationum, why didn't
your brother approve of your wedding and act as best
man instead?
> >
> > No. The difference is, you have, and always have
> > had a pen pushing job that doesn't require any
> > brawn or physical risk to your health. I'm a
> > working-class Brit: hard as nails.
>
> Flabby, stupid, crude and brutish. Good for cannon
> fodder
Heh. If a quirk in time had pitted us against each
other during the Crimean war, according to Putnam's
monthly magazine, 1855, as a gunner, your stout little
frame and strength would've been bad news for me
as a foot soldier.
"The artillery, too, is composed of taller men than
it should be. The natural standard of size for an
artillery-man is, that he should be big enough to
unlimber a twelve pound gun, and five feet two to
five feet six inches are ample for this purpose, as
we know from abundant personal experience and
observation. In fact, men of about five feet five, or
six, inches, if stoutly made, are, generally, the best
handlers of guns."
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/bmh/britisharmy1855.htm
But that was then. It's the only window in history
where you might've beaten me.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:lax_a.188227$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> >
> > >Fully assembled Pinto 2 litre engines weigh about 400
> > > pounds. No wonder it gave you trouble, Hercules.
> >
> > That sounds a bit heavy, but I wouldn't be surprised
> > if it weighed a good 250-300 with the head off. It's
> > not as if I had to shoulder press the damn thing, but
> > merely to lift it up and out of the engine bay.
>
> Still constitutes more than a deadlift.
You're a fraud, 'suspect', because anyone who regularly
trained at a gym, as you claim to have done, would've
regularly seen 600+ on the bar in the loony deadlifter's
corner. I was deadlifting 400 in my late teens, and could
clean and jerk nearly half of it.
> And I'm sure the
> weight is right for a fully assembled engine.
>
Nearly.
Engine Pounds Ref comments
Ford 2.3 Lima/Pinto L4 418 (2) (also 2.0, 2.5)
http://www.cmr.uq.edu.au/~rotor/auscar/auscar.html
> >>>Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
> >>
> >>Not anymore.
> >
> > Just as before.
>
> No you're not. You'd be back in a garage if you were.
>
My mobility might be a bit crap, but I haven't
lost anything else, much.
> >>>Bollocks. 3 of your best divisions probably wouldn't
> >>>even contain an average UK football mob, let alone
> >>>a British corps. American 'fighters' huh, are all poofs.
> >>
> >>We've kicked your asses in two wars (1776, 1812) and saved your nuts in
> >>two others (WWI, WWII).
> >
> > Poofs.
>
> A lot of women in your mum's generation would take issue with you about
> that claim of pooftery. A lot of people your age have American
> half-brothers and -sisters. Who knows, even you might.
>
Not a chance. I have a complete family tree including
dates of birth, weddings etc. going back to Benjamin
Nash who shared the same birthday as myself in 1848.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Exactly. I don't believe in such a thing as an 'accident'.
> > There's always someone to praise or blame for an
> > incident or event, and sometimes that candidate will
> > be yourself. Moral judgment will tell you when, if you
> > have any.
>
> We know already that you claim not to believe in it,
> and I showed a couple of years ago that it was a
> nonsense,
No, you didn't.
> the result of bad moral instruction by your
> worthless, shiftless drunk of a father.
Fuck off. He never drank, and his moral instruction
was pretty much conventional.
> (I remember
> you offered his having occupied the position of union
> shop steward as some kind of testimonial to his ability
> to think through moral issues.
No. His position was due to his ability to talk 'for' both
sides of any argument while remaining duty bound by
his members to get what they wanted from the management.
> That figured. British unions are associations of bandits.)
Fuck off.
> In that debate, I
> quickly divined that you see life as, at best, a zero
> sum game,
Just like Neal, and going by your description of him in
his "class-conscious view of the world", I think I have
a lot in common with him.
> but in fact you really see it as a negative sum game.
>
Nope. You had it right the first time. Being an electrician,
I know that the algebraic sum of currents flowing into
and out of a junction will equal zero. Look up Kirchoffs
1st law.
> You lost the debate then,
Did I fuck.
> and so naturally you lose it
> before it ever starts now. Accidents happen.
No, they don't. People take risks based on their
calculations in getting away with things, even when
they know the odds are stacked against them. They
don't have accidents, although tossers like you give
them the benefit of 'accident' every time.
> Bad
> stuff happens for which no one is morally blameworthy
> (legal responsibility is another matter altogether.)
>
Careful. Don't stick your neck out too far on this
one. Bad stuff, i.e. CD could definitely be one of
those bad actions vegans aren't morally responsible
for according to that, and I shall beat you mercilessly
with this if you don't watch it.
> Your fatuous insistence that someone is always to blame
> is consistent with your lifelong lifelong shirking of
> moral responsibility,
I never shirk my responsibilities. I simply refuse to
take it for other people's wrong-doing, that's all.
It's not that difficult to understand.
> a bad quality that was publicly
> established beyond dispute years ago.
Nope.
[NOPE]
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:jav_a.11013$M6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>lying Shit4braincell wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Cc9_a.8838$M6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>It was a cold day. I wasn't warmed up.
>>>>
>>>>Two excuses.
>>>
>>>Two good reasons, not excuses.
>>
>>Excuses. We can all see that they're excuses.
>>
>
> No. Both were
Excuses, plain and simple.
I really don't know why you think the repetition of
high-falutin' sounding definitions helps you. It
doesn't. You scarcely understand what they mean.
usual suspect
>>>>Fully assembled Pinto 2 litre engines weigh about 400
>>>>pounds. No wonder it gave you trouble, Hercules.
>>>
>>>That sounds a bit heavy, but I wouldn't be surprised
>>>if it weighed a good 250-300 with the head off. It's
>>>not as if I had to shoulder press the damn thing, but
>>>merely to lift it up and out of the engine bay.
>>
>>Still constitutes more than a deadlift.
>
> You're a fraud, 'suspect', because anyone who regularly
> trained at a gym, as you claim to have done, would've
> regularly seen 600+ on the bar in the loony deadlifter's
> corner. I was deadlifting 400 in my late teens, and could
> clean and jerk nearly half of it.
"Constitutes more than a deadlift" means that "lift[ing] it up and out
of the engine bay" is more than a deadlift in process, not necessarily
in weight. You're stupid to have tried that cold morning or not, warmed
up or not. I'll reserve comment on your overall stupidity since my
remark was unintentionally vague.
<snip>
>>>>>Nope. I'm as strong as a small horse.
>>>>
>>>>Not anymore.
>>>
>>>Just as before.
>>
>>No you're not. You'd be back in a garage if you were.
>
> My mobility might be a bit crap, but I haven't
> lost anything else, much.
What good is strength without range of motion?
>>>>We've kicked your asses in two wars (1776, 1812) and saved your nuts in
>>>>two others (WWI, WWII).
>>>
>>>Poofs.
>>
>>A lot of women in your mum's generation would take issue with you about
>>that claim of pooftery. A lot of people your age have American
>>half-brothers and -sisters. Who knows, even you might.
>
> Not a chance. I have a complete family tree including
> dates of birth, weddings etc. going back to Benjamin
> Nash who shared the same birthday as myself in 1848.
Family trees can be fudged, boy genius. Does yours contain DNA tests to
prove paternity? I doubt *you* need it, but a lot of Brits your age do.
usual suspect
>>Excuses. We can all see that they're excuses.
>
> No. Both were
> 1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
> 2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
> 3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise
> or occurrence.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
Excuse: a real or pretend reason or explanation.
Thorndike-Barnhardt
<snip>
> But that was then. It's the only window in history
> where you might've beaten me.
Except in debate.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:t09_a.158665$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> <snip>
> >>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
> >>once,
> >
> > one.
>
> We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R,
And that's the wrong way to spell it.
> you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R.
And that's the right way to spell it.
> Your lot have mastered the art of extra letters in
> words: color, neighbor, etc.
Are you sure about that? My 'guess' is that you lazy
Yanks dropped the vowel instead.
> You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
>
~toemartoe~ What's wrong with that?
> <snip>
> >>Why don't
> >>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
> >>you'd have better success.
> >
> > Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>
> They work for a living
So do male hairstylists: poofs. And besides, your uniform
is shite and your drill is sloppy. You have no discipline.
> you sit at home after waddling down to the chip
> and betting shops.
>
I'm really not that fat, considering my weight, and I
hardly ever eat chips. I eat too many nuts and legumes
than what's good for me, that's my problem.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>>Exactly. I don't believe in such a thing as an 'accident'.
>>>There's always someone to praise or blame for an
>>>incident or event, and sometimes that candidate will
>>>be yourself. Moral judgment will tell you when, if you
>>>have any.
>>
>>We know already that you claim not to believe in it,
>>and I showed a couple of years ago that it was a
>>nonsense,
>
>
> No, you didn't.
Of course I did, Dreck. It was child's play.
>
>
>>the result of bad moral instruction by your
>>worthless, shiftless drunk of a father.
>
>
> Fuck off. He never drank, and his moral instruction
> was pretty much conventional.
It wasn't. He explicitly taught you this nonsense that
someone is *morally* to blame or praise for any
outcome. That's rubbish. Your lout of a father was an
uneducated, churlish brute. He embodied all the shitty
qualities for which the British working class is
notorious, one of the biggest being shirking and
cheating the employer. Everything you learned from him
was wrong.
>
>
>>(I remember
>>you offered his having occupied the position of union
>>shop steward as some kind of testimonial to his ability
>>to think through moral issues.
>
>
> No.
YES, Dreck, you offered it as some kind of testament to
his ability to think through moral issues.
> His position was due to his ability to talk 'for' both
> sides of any argument while remaining duty bound by
> his members to get what they wanted from the management.
His position was due to being a thug. He was an
extortionist.
>
>
>>That figured. British unions are associations of bandits.)
>
>
> Fuck off.
No. I have that exactly right. Unionism in general is
a bad thing, but British unions are the very worst in
the western world. They are legalized gangsterism.
Every rational person in the world cheered when Lady
Thatcher got that hoodlum Arthur "Al Capone" Scargill's
nuts in a vise over the pit closures back in the 1980s.
>
>
>>In that debate, I
>>quickly divined that you see life as, at best, a zero
>>sum game,
>
>
> Just like Neal, and going by your description of him in
> his "class-conscious view of the world", I think I have
> a lot in common with him.
None of it the good stuff. I well recall:
JB:
[Neal, except it might have been 'Neil'] was exactly
like you in his rigidly class-conscious view of the
world, and its concomitant division into good guys /
bad buys on that criterion alone. He was also like
you in his wrongheaded view of life as a zero-sum
game: someone else's gain must come at someone
else's loss.
Shit4braincell yob:
You're exactly right to know I agree with Neal. My
sunny days are someone else's cloudy days.
JB:
You didn't need to tell me that. I know it better
than I know anything else about you.
It's a fundementally hateful outlook, which is a
large part of how I knew it applied to you. "AR"
is, fundamentally, about hate.
You are flatly wrong about life being a zero-sum game.
>
>
>>but in fact you really see it as a negative sum game.
>>
>
> Nope. You had it right the first time. Being an electrician,
> I know fuck-all about life.
You said it.
>
>
>>You lost the debate then,
>
>
> Did I fuck.
No. Your pecker hasn't worked for 20 years.
>
>
>>and so naturally you lose it
>>before it ever starts now. Accidents happen.
>
>
> No, they don't. People take risks based on their
> calculations in getting away with things,
No. There's a wrong-headed moral judgment in that
stupid statement.
> even when
> they know the odds are stacked against them.
Risk analysis theory shows otherwise. Most people are
risk averse.
> They don't have accidents, although tossers like you give
> them the benefit of 'accident' every time.
No. People do have accidents, and bad outcomes are
analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the
analysis reveals that someone stupidly *did* try
something because he "thought he could get away with
it", and other times it reveals that the person
exercised a proper standard of care but didn't have
some critical piece of information, and so misjudged.
There's a third possibility. Stuff just goes wrong
sometimes. It's only a moral shirker like you who
assumes there *must* be someone else to blame, and it
must be another shirker. Because you're a moral shit,
just like your dead drunk dad, you assume everyone is.
>
>
>>Bad
>>stuff happens for which no one is morally blameworthy
>>(legal responsibility is another matter altogether.)
>>
>
> Careful. Don't stick your neck out too far on this
> one. Bad stuff, i.e. CD could definitely be one of
> those bad actions vegans aren't morally responsible
> for according to that, and I shall beat you mercilessly
> with this if you don't watch it.
My neck is well protected, fuckwad. CD do not qualify.
We have seen, conclusively, that the same standard of
care is not taken for animals that is taken for humans.
If humans were killed in the same reckless manner as
animals, it would be easily seen that the killer
behaved in a reckless manner. That no one cares, least
of all "aras", is proof that the "aras" do not *really*
believe in animal "rights".
>
>
>>Your fatuous insistence that someone is always to blame
>>is consistent with your lifelong lifelong shirking of
>>moral responsibility,
>
>
> I never shirk my responsibilities.
You are a lifelong shirker of any and all moral
responsibility. If there's any bad outcome and you
caused it, you say and do *anything* to try to weasel
out of being held accountable. Your dirty behavior
with respect to animal CDs is just the most blatant
example.
> I simply refuse to
> take it for other people's wrong-doing, that's all.
> It's not that difficult to understand.
It goes far beyond that. You are a 100% shirker, so
you assume wrongly that everyone is. You'd get the
maximum sentence in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
>
>
>>a bad quality that was publicly
>>established beyond dispute years ago.
>
>
> Nope.
Yes.
usual suspect
>>We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R,
>
> And that's the wrong way to spell it.
It's correct. It's the way carbureTor companies spell it.
>>you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R.
>
> And that's the right way to spell it.
It's archaic, even in Europe.
<snip>
>>You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
>
> ~toemartoe~ What's wrong with that?
Hint: there's no R in it.
>>>Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>>
>>They work for a living
>
> So do male hairstylists: poofs. And besides, your uniform
> is shite and your drill is sloppy. You have no discipline.
This coming from an undisciplined yobbo whose hardest task of any given
day is rolling out of bed.
>>you sit at home after waddling down to the chip
>>and betting shops.
>
> I'm really not that fat, considering my weight,
How about considering your height in relation to your weight?
> and I hardly ever eat chips.
Sure.
> I eat too many nuts and legumes
> than what's good for me, that's my problem.
Than wot's good for you? You eat too much, period, for your lack of
activity.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:t09_a.158665$XV.84...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic
>>>>once,
>>>
>>>You can't even spell one right, let alone service
>>>one.
>>
>>We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R,
>
>
> And that's the wrong way to spell it.
>
>
>>you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R.
>
>
> And that's the right way to spell it.
The Germans spell it 'Vergaser', and that's the right
way to spell it...in German.
Face it, yobbo: English spelling is increasingly
controlled by America. Britain is a flea on the tail
of the dog. Thanks for the help in Iraq, though.
>
>
>>Your lot have mastered the art of extra letters in
>>words: color, neighbor, etc.
>
>
> Are you sure about that? My 'guess' is that you lazy
> Yanks dropped the vowel instead.
It wasn't out of laziness. It was out of a rational
recognition that the letters are completely superfluous.
>
>
>>You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
>>
>
> ~toemartoe~ What's wrong with that?
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Why don't
>>>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter;
>>>>you'd have better success.
>>>
>>>Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>>
>>They work for a living
>
>
> So do male hairstylists: poofs. And besides, your uniform
> is shite and your drill is sloppy. You have no discipline.
You keep telling yourself that, if it provides any
consolation for the fact that the Brits can't defend
themselves.
>
>
>>you sit at home after waddling down to the chip
>>and betting shops.
>>
>
> I'm really not that fat, considering my weight,
You fucking dummy: it's a consideration of your
weight, 18 stone and climbing, that leads to your
classification as a lardball. Your twin brother is
only about 12 and a half stone.
You are butter.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> >
> > Nope. You had it right the first time. Being an electrician,
> > I know fuck-all about life.
>
> You said it.
>
and edited in "I know fuck all about life." What was that
you earlier said about your ability to debate, Jon?
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. You had it right the first time. Being an electrician,
>>>I know fuck-all about life.
>>
>>You said it.
>>
>
> You unethically edited out my analogy to Kirchoffs laws
It was not a serious comment. It was a completely
inappropriate analogy that only served to obscure
rather than clarify.
> and edited in "I know fuck all about life." What was that
> you earlier said about your ability to debate, Jon?
I debate my intellectual peers. I trifle with
riff-raff and yobboes.
Malcolm
I bet he doesn't have an ample bosom and a very small, almost
ridiculous looking penis, you do!
Strange how love works, why don't you just ask him out, you never know
he might say yes!
You're good for nothing else, may as well get a free blow job out of
you.
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
Malcolm
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
Sure had us fooled, care to post an ID where this myth occurred?
We just thought you were a mini todger arsehole.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
> He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
> working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
> and cheating the employer.
Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum", my
father had honour and didn't shirk his responsibility
to his family. He was honest and cared enough about
his responsibility as a father to remain with us.
What's it like growing up with a mother who was
discarded by her husband like used goods, Jon, and
what was it like to be abandoned by that piece of
shit just before your teens? Was it a good compromise
from the constant arguments you undoubtedly listened
in to every night prior to them eventually splitting up, or
did you ask him to stay?
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:nxO_a.189774$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Derek wrote:
> >>Excuses. We can all see that they're excuses.
> >
> > No. Both were
> > 1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
> > 2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
> > 3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise
> > or occurrence.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
>
> Excuse: a real or pretend reason or explanation.
And in my case, real.
Thorndike-Barnhardt
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
>>and cheating the employer.
>
>
> Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
> that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> my father had honour
We can snip all the rest, because anything that follows
this blatant lie gets lost in the laughter.
Your father had no honor. He was a bandit.
Malcolm
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
>>>and cheating the employer.
>>
>>
>> Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
>> that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>
>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
Your mother wasn't even married to your father, or rather fathers, I
think even I may have dipped my wick there at some stage, everyone
else had.
Jonathan Ball
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:01:19 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>
>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>
>
> Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
She was.
Your mother wasn't married to her brother, though.
Interesting: your mum is also your aunt, and your dead
drunk dad was also your uncle.
You're a fat queer, Pete.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:UI6%a.2447$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:01:19 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
> >>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
> >>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
> >>>>and cheating the employer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
> >>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
> >>
> >>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> >
> > Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>
> She was.
But not for long, and the reason for that was because
he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and
totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was
the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke
who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:UI6%a.2447$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:01:19 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>>><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
>>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
>>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
>>>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
>>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>>>
>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>>
>>She was.
>
>
> But not for long,
14 years. I was 9 when they split.
Your father/uncle and mother/aunt were never married.
The state will not sanction incestuous relationships
like that.
usual suspect
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:UI6%a.2447$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:01:19 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>>><jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BGO_a.717$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:AqF_a.71$f15....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute.
>>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British
>>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking
>>>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with
>>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>>>
>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>>
>>She was.
>
>
> But not for long, and the reason for that was because
> he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and
> totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was
> the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke
> who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
How sure are you that Mr Nash was your biological father? Ask your mum
if she ever went out with any of those virile American soldiers and
airmen who were defending your muddy island from foreign invasion.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:_Z6%a.2465$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> 14 years. I was 9 when they split.
>
Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been
an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be
using it to get back at you for anything really.
Sorry Jon.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would
still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to
experience. None of your own. Eh?
>
Jonathan Ball
I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously
affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I
seen how wrong I was.
My older brother and younger brother both have led
thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has
had any career success at all. My younger brother
bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in
a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older
brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger
has been married and divorced twice; older has been
married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him).
My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing
okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once.
I think she's done relatively better than my brothers
in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea
what was going on at the time.
I have had far, far better career success than any of
them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you
- and me - something.
Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are
kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain.
Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a
menace to the health and safety of the kids, the
parents should stay together for the kids' sake.
BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt
that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest
single difference between me and my two brothers,
particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude
that the world owed him and didn't pay.
Jonathan Ball
Impossible to say for certain, but doubtlessly false.
As it was, prior to our rescue of your shithole island,
you were fighting them the whole time with huge
helpings of our war matériel, for which you never
repaid the loans. I suppose your meager assistance in
the two wars against Iraq made a small dent in the
accumulated interest.
usual suspect
> Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would
> still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to
> experience. None of your own. Eh?
We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most
of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate
instantaneously.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Pp7%a.2505$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:_Z6%a.2465$f15.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>14 years. I was 9 when they split.
> >
> > Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been
> > an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be
> > using it to get back at you for anything really.
> > Sorry Jon.
>
> I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously
> affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I
> seen how wrong I was.
>
> My older brother and younger brother both have led
> thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has
> had any career success at all. My younger brother
> bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in
> a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older
> brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger
> has been married and divorced twice; older has been
> married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him).
> My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing
> okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once.
> I think she's done relatively better than my brothers
> in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea
> what was going on at the time.
>
you had all those brothers and a sister it never
occured to me that any of them were less fortunate
than yourself in some ways. In fact, I've thought for
a long time that maybe you were left behind by at
least one of them in academia, and I was hoping to
prize it out of you to make some use of it later on.
> I have had far, far better career success than any of
> them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you
> - and me - something.
>
You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably
gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you
finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you
made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor. Whether
this helped your studies and career is hard to confirm
seeing as there are so many examples which show
married men to be successful, but there's no doubt it
suited you, and would probably have suited your
siblings just as well too if I'm reading you correctly.
It doesn't suit everyone.
> Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are
> kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain.
> Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a
> menace to the health and safety of the kids, the
> parents should stay together for the kids' sake.
>
If I can take you back to something I once wrote to
Swamp, I think it shows I agree with you here, even
though the discussion was mainly to explain my ideas
on personal responsibilty.
"Oh come off it, swamp. No fault divorce is a sham
because it doesn't differentiate between a woman who
wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who
wants to leave his wife for a younger woman. The law
makes no distinctions at all. No fault's primary purpose
is to empower whichever party wants out, with the least
possible fuss and the greatest possible speed with no
questions asked. It simply isn't a fair and just law at all
if it always empowers the guilty party. I'm not against
divorce per se, but I'm very much against this no fault
nonsense."
> BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt
> that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest
> single difference between me and my two brothers,
> particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude
> that the world owed him and didn't pay.
>
I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified.
Some people DO get a raw deal. They never get the
breaks others do, and it isn't entirely their fault if they
don't recognise them when they come either. Have you
ever considered the odds against being born healthy in
a rich country with fine universities where your rights
are respected at birth? Surely, you feel you owe society
something, so what's wrong when people believe society
owes them?
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:gy7%a.163787$TJ.98...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Jonathan Ball
It's exactly the other way around. I'm the only one
who completed university. My older brother probably
could have done, but began to skid. I doubt my younger
brother ever had the right mental makeup for it. My
sister never was interested.
>
>
>>I have had far, far better career success than any of
>>them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you
>>- and me - something.
>>
>
> You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
> what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably
> gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you
> finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you
> made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor.
No; that's not it.
It isn't. It probably never is, but certainly not in
his case. He had an emotionally hard time of it due to
the divorce, but that's hardly the *world's* fault. In
terms of material advantages and disadvantages, he had
exactly the same as I had.
> Some people DO get a raw deal. They never get the
> breaks others do, and it isn't entirely their fault
if they
> don't recognise them when they come either.
Sounds as if you're making the case for "accident".
> Have you
> ever considered the odds against being born healthy in
> a rich country with fine universities where your rights
> are respected at birth?
Yes.
> Surely, you feel you owe society something,
Why? The people who worked hard and did the right
thing weren't doing it for others, they were doing it
for themselves (and families). It's Adam Smith's
Invisible Hand. You really ought to read about Smith,
even if you can't read Smith himself.
> so what's wrong when people believe society owes them?
1. They're wrong, usually.
2. Society usually has already provided them with
something, and they pissed it away.
usual suspect
That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by
real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer?
Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
usual suspect
<snip>
> You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
wtf do you know about American girls?
Jonathan Ball
> Derek wrote:
>
>> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>> news:gy7%a.163787$TJ.98...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>
>>> Ray wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would
>>>> still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, *you* would be speaking German now.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to
>>>> experience. None of your own. Eh?
>>>
>>>
>>> We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most
>>> of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate
>>> instantaneously.
>>>
>>
>> Bell was born in Scotland, dolt.
>
>
> That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by
> real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
Bell did his work in America, where individual
initiative and effort traditionally have been rewarded
rather than ridiculed. The brain drain has been going
on a long time.
> Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer?
> Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet?
Careful. The WWW was invented in Switzerland. Not by
anyone named Gore.
> Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
>
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:qO9%a.165768$TJ.98...@twister.austin.rr.com...
watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is
there to learn about them?
usual suspect
>>>You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
>>>what they are and not very fussy... <snip>
>>
>>wtf do you know about American girls?
>
> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
I was afraid you'd been watching Oprah.
usual suspect
>> Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal
>> computer? Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet?
>
> Careful. The WWW was invented in Switzerland. Not by anyone named Gore.
Right, by someone named Berners-Lee. CERN's contribution is noted.
ARPAnet and internet, though, are American in origin.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
At least we only shot at the enemy.
>
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
How much of that do we owe to the Japs?
You have not even got a decent TV transmission service. NTSC is crap.
>
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites -
certainly not the USA.
Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are
cheaper but not reliable. The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the
bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world
over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they
based?
Shove that up your flue.
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Yours was drained years ago, pity it was refilled with piss.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Steady on, you'll start an argument between yourselves:-)
>
usual suspect
>>We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most
>>of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate
>>instantaneously.
>
> How much of that do we owe to the Japs?
The innovations? Some. The manufacture? A lot more.
> You have not even got a decent TV transmission service.
I don't watch much TV, but I have digital cable. With all due respect,
it's pretty good.
> NTSC is crap.
Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most
people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer,
and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite
available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it.
Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many
bureaucrats and lobbyists.
usual suspect
>>That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by
>>real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
>>Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer?
>>Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
>
> OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites -
> certainly not the USA.
>
> Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are
> cheaper but not reliable.
I know that.
> The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the
> bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
Would you like to put me there?
> I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world
> over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they
> based?
That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and
newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Where are they based? Redmond, Washington.
Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their
profitability. BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or
reduced rate?
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Well, now we are back to a bit of decent debate I'll clarify what I said
earlier.
Your 'NTSC' system had it's faults due to the vector phase shift within the
chroma subcarrier, but as I'm stupid I don't know about those things, in any
case with the advent of digital transmissions this is no longer an issue.
The analogue system we use 'PAL' ( a German development) gives superior
pictures than our present digital transmissions.
Of course MPEG is capable of far superior resolution, but not at the rate it
is streamed in the UK. At best it is acceptable, to the trained eye - I
regret to say it is crap. We have no plans for HDTV, indeed experimental
transmissions have only recently started in Europe. All digital
transmissions in the UK share the same encryption system 'Videoguard', it is
very secure and has only been cracked once. Which brings me on to a
political theme.
'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All
transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal
encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to
the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus
there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport,
owned by BT.
IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their
control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
Do you see any problem there?
(Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
>
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:NE9%a.4536$Nf3....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
enough in studying the subjects being offered. Take
my twin, for example. He can barely understand even
the basics in the subjects I managed, with distinctions
no less, but I can't even get close to matching him in
chess, even though I consider myself extremely good.
We were both beating most of the adults at the age of
12 in Vauxhall's chess club in our home town. I did
fairly well, but he went straight into the ratings room
within a month. The chess-mad cafe's all around where
he lived in Holland treated him like royalty, and rival
cafe's with their own resident teams would even try to
poach him. He's practically unbeatable, even when
pissed, but he can't even read the freeware I write for
Psion computers, let alone the math included in them.
We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
> >
> >>I have had far, far better career success than any of
> >>them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you
> >>- and me - something.
> >
> > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
> > what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably
> > gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you
> > finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you
> > made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor.
>
> No; that's not it.
>
a conscious decision of your own, it had to be
someone else's instead.
[..]
> >>BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt
> >>that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest
> >>single difference between me and my two brothers,
> >>particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude
> >>that the world owed him and didn't pay.
> >
> > I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified.
>
> It isn't. It probably never is, but certainly not in
> his case. He had an emotionally hard time of it due to
> the divorce, but that's hardly the *world's* fault. In
> terms of material advantages and disadvantages, he had
> exactly the same as I had.
>
that's what he means when he says the World owes
him. Despite my current health predicament I've
always considered myself lucky, although I have
had to make some of it myself. Like you, I'm no
Victor Mature either, but I always managed to get
the best girl in town. To show you what I mean,
if you go to alt.binaries.pictures.misc and look at
two of the photos under my name you'll see last
month's shots of myself and Belinda in our garden,
and an awful one from the same month of myself
taken by surprise indoors. There's a couple there
of my dog and grandson under the name of 'non'
too. With a face and shape like mine, you need an
awful lot of luck in this World.
usual suspect
>>>NTSC is crap.
>>
>>Traditional network broadcasting has been in decline for years. Most
>>people watch cable (who needs to see network sit coms, Jerry Springer,
>>and soap operas in HD anyway?). We've had HD and digital cable/satellite
>>available here for a few years now. Most of the people I know have it.
>>Local broadcasters (dinosaurs) are slow to change because of too many
>>bureaucrats and lobbyists.
>
> Well, now we are back to a bit of decent debate I'll clarify what I said
> earlier.
>
> Your 'NTSC' system had it's faults due to the vector phase shift within the
> chroma subcarrier, but as I'm stupid I don't know about those things, in any
> case with the advent of digital transmissions this is no longer an issue.
> The analogue system we use 'PAL' ( a German development) gives superior
> pictures than our present digital transmissions.
>
> Of course MPEG is capable of far superior resolution, but not at the rate it
> is streamed in the UK. At best it is acceptable, to the trained eye - I
> regret to say it is crap. We have no plans for HDTV, indeed experimental
> transmissions have only recently started in Europe. All digital
> transmissions in the UK share the same encryption system 'Videoguard', it is
> very secure and has only been cracked once. Which brings me on to a
> political theme.
Why does it have to be "political"?
> 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All
> transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal
> encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to
> the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus
> there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport,
> owned by BT.
Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a
visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger
picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than
where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry
were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it,
only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
> IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their
> control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
>
> Do you see any problem there?
> (Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has
certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws
that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights,
right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your
concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
pearl
> Ray wrote:
<..>
> > 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All
> > transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal
> > encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to
> > the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus
> > there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport,
> > owned by BT.
>
> Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a
> visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger
> picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than
> where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry
> were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it,
> only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
'Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip,
naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he
contaminates. And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into
his mix for good measure. .. His great fortune rests on his wager
that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to
the core.' Read All About It- http://rense.com/general39/mass.htm .
usual suspect
>>>'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All
>>>transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal
>>>encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink to
>>>the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service. Plus
>>>there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky Teleport,
>>>owned by BT.
>>
>>Murdoch is a genius when it comes to running his businesses. He's a
>>visionary, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, who saw the bigger
>>picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than
>>where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry
>>were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it,
>>only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
>
> 'Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip,
> naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he
> contaminates.
See a demand, supply it, make a profit. There's nothing wrong with it.
That's how you put bread on your table.
> And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into
> his mix for good measure. ..
Evidence please?
> His great fortune rests on his wager
> that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to
> the core.'
It wasn't a wager, it was borne of a vision and marketing studies.
Murdoch's holdings aren't "bigoted, prurient, or nasty to the core."
Those tabloids have a long history of showing scantily-clad women, and
Brits have long been bigoted and engaged in "bedroom humor." He hasn't
changed the British climate, he's only profited from it.
<snip renseshit link>
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
Read on
>
> > 'Videoguard' is owned by Rupert Murdoch (News International). All
> > transmissions, including The BBC have to subscribe and have their signal
> > encrypted and routed via News International control rooms before uplink
to
> > the 'Astra' & 'Eurobird' satellites which form our satellite service.
Plus
> > there is only one uplink earth station to these satellites, Sky
Teleport,
> > owned by BT.
>
> Murdoch is a genius
He's a crook a cheat and a fraud. He is allowed by our government to operate
an unfair monopoly. He is a dangerous man.
when it comes to running his businesses. He's a
> visionary, like Bill Gates,
He's another, except he's not dangerous
Steve Jobs,
Can't comment never use 'Apple'
and others, who saw the bigger
> picture of where his industry would be decades down the road rather than
> where it would be in a year or two. The fact that others in the industry
> were either unable to see the future, or to be active players in it,
> only shows their lack of vision or their incompetence.
>
> > IOW The BBC have no jurisdiction over their signal once it leaves their
> > control rooms. Not a lot of people know that!
> >
> > Do you see any problem there?
> > (Apart that I am a mile 'off topic')
>
> No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has
> certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws
> that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights,
> right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your
> concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
Not irrelevant.
A brief example of the tactics of 'Sky TV'.
One of our terrestrial programmes (Channel 5) is not available in many parts
of he country, owing to analogue bandwidth problems. However it is carried
via satellite. Sky TV suddenly decide that they will disconnect viewers from
the transmission unless they subscribe to a Sky TV package.
I do not know he outcome of this situation, but palms have to be greased
before it is resolved. This is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. More will
follow, Murdoch is corrupt and enjoys an unfair monopoly.
>
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by
> >>real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
> >>Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer?
> >>Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless?
Etc.
> >
> > OK smart arse, which country does launch our communication satellites -
> > certainly not the USA.
> >
> > Some are launced by ESA but most are launched by the Russians. They are
> > cheaper but not reliable.
>
> I know that.
>
> > The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the
> > bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
>
> Would you like to put me there?
If you like.
>
> > I'll rephrase the second part of your question. Who is fucking the world
> > over with the extortionate prices demanded for software? Where are they
> > based?
>
> That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and
> newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158. Consulted
'Properties' I hope! Or did ~~jonnie~~ tell you?
No trust involved, came with the PC. Convenient to upgrade. Another point,
Windows 98 is due for the chop.
Tell you what though. My PCs at work operate on ME which is a bloody
unstable system. I opted for XP and was quoted well over £200 per PC. That's
what I call having my leg lifted. Microsoft are bandits.
>
> Where are they based? Redmond, Washington. Precisely!
>
> Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their
> profitability.
No, I fancy 'Mozilla' The choice of the connoissseur and hacker.
BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or
> reduced rate?
A great failing of mine.
I'm thinking of applying for registered charity status.
>
usual suspect
>>Why does it have to be "political"?
>
> Read on
You really didn't answer the question.
>>Murdoch is a genius
>
> He's a crook a cheat and a fraud. He is allowed by our government to operate
> an unfair monopoly. He is a dangerous man.
He's not a crook, cheat, or fraud. If he were, he could be tried for
crimes. He is not dangerous at all. Were it not for him, you'd still be
glued to Channel 4 all bloody day.
His businesses are not monopolistic. Your government has instituted a
barrier to competition in the form of a franchise agreement. We have
similar barriers to competition here, including with cable television
providers.
>>visionary, like Bill Gates,
>
> He's another, except he's not dangerous
I think he'd pose more of a global threat than Murdoch. I don't think
Microsoft is a threat or evil or dangerous, either.
>> Steve Jobs,
>
> Can't comment never use 'Apple'
You can still comment. Prior to Apple, few people saw the possibility of
personal computers, much less that nearly every home would have one.
Jobs also saw the potential for operating systems with a graphical user
interface. He knew Xerox already had one but were never going to use it;
he bought it for next to nothing, adapted it to the personal computer,
and now you and I benefit from Gates' version of the technology.
>>No. The BBC contracts to have their signal transmitted. The BBC has
>>certain assurances and protections under contract and copyright laws
>>that pertain to their rights (BBC transmissions carry copyrights,
>>right?) and transmission integrity. Such legal protections make your
>>concerns about BBC's signal irrelevant.
>
> Not irrelevant.
No, irrelevant. Transmission integrity is mandated by nearly every
nation. If you're running Botswana Television, you cannot intercept
CNN's or BBC's transmission and put your own graphics over theirs. Nor
can they do that to Botswana TV's signal. If you're running a cable or
satellite network, you cannot hold programmers hostage beyond the terms
of contract. BBC, if there were a problem, could find another uplink and
downlink in America, France, Russia, Israel, or China.
> A brief example of the tactics of 'Sky TV'.
>
> One of our terrestrial programmes (Channel 5) is not available in many parts
> of he country, owing to analogue bandwidth problems. However it is carried
> via satellite. Sky TV suddenly decide that they will disconnect viewers from
> the transmission unless they subscribe to a Sky TV package.
>
> I do not know he outcome of this situation, but palms have to be greased
> before it is resolved. This is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. More will
> follow, Murdoch is corrupt and enjoys an unfair monopoly.
It isn't corruption, and that monopoly is related to a state-granted
franchise agreeement. We've had similar problems here, particularly with
home satellite dish service as it related to then FCC rules (most of
which have changed). Some terrestrial cable companies have also engaged
in similar practices as you described. It's a matter of contract, and
the fault lies with the bureaucrats -- the corrupt and dangerous parties
involved -- who devise franchise schemes that aren't in the public
interest in the first place.
usual suspect
>>>The largest and latest 'Astra' satellite is at the
>>>bottom of the Atlantic. Where you should be.
>>
>>Would you like to put me there?
>
> If you like.
I've already had a brush with death in the Pacific. What's one more ocean?
>>That would be the same company you trust for your e-mailing and
>>newsgrouping: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158. Consulted
>
> 'Properties' I hope! Or did ~~jonnie~~ tell you?
Header data.
> No trust involved, came with the PC. Convenient to upgrade. Another point,
> Windows 98 is due for the chop.
>
> Tell you what though. My PCs at work operate on ME which is a bloody
> unstable system. I opted for XP and was quoted well over £200 per PC. That's
> what I call having my leg lifted. Microsoft are bandits.
I only used Win 98 on my laptop, but ditched it for Linux when my
warranty ran out. I had to run 32-bit NT on my old desktop to remain
compatible with my work stuff. Never was impressed with ME, so I never
bothered with it. Switched to XP last summer when I upgraded my box.
It's pretty stable and worth the cost. You shouldn't have to spend that
much for an upgrade from ME. IIRC, my upgrade was $69 (about £45); I
just looked and found the upgrade for £85 online.
>>Where are they based? Redmond, Washington. Precisely!
>>
>>Try Linux or BSD if you don't like their products or their
>>profitability.
>
> No, I fancy 'Mozilla' The choice of the connoissseur and hacker.
Mozilla runs on Linux/BSD, as well as other platforms.
>> BTW, when was the last time you worked for free or
>>reduced rate?
>
> A great failing of mine.
> I'm thinking of applying for registered charity status.
lol
usual suspect
<snip>
> I only used Win 98 on my laptop, but ditched it for Linux when my
> warranty ran out. I had to run 32-bit NT on my old desktop to remain
> compatible with my work stuff. Never was impressed with ME, so I never
> bothered with it. Switched to XP last summer when I upgraded my box.
> It's pretty stable and worth the cost. You shouldn't have to spend that
> much for an upgrade from ME. IIRC, my upgrade was $69 (about £45); I
> just looked and found the upgrade for £85 online.
Sorry, that was home version.