Introduction
Warne
Hello my name is Geoff. I don't know what the purpose of this newsgroup
is, but the name suggested something I would be very interested in. Please
let me know what you intend for this group.
For myself, I would hope to discuss trends in art, fashion, music, etc.
around the ideas of modernism, and get your opinions about how to live with
integrity and style today.
Sincerely Yours.
LL
is this a newsgroup for mods?
or am i just a fool?
Patricia
then you will learn what this newsgroup is all about.
Either you may decide to continue reading these fascinating writings of
John Copeland or you can keep on looking for the "mods."
Paul Whitehead
<calli...@geocities.com> writes
>
>is this a newsgroup for mods?
>or am i just a fool?
>
politics and everyday things. For a while it was dominated by those of a
Conservative disposition, but when the centre and left bit back; when
the Tories lost the last election in the UK, and when the right in the
States became obsessed with Monica's hidden bits (those that were in
inappropriate proximity to the president), the rightists fell apart in a
sulk.
Paul
--
Paul Whitehead
Graham Weeks
--
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Christiansquoting
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical science has determined that attitude influences susceptibility
to disease, especially infection by viral or bacterial agents. People
who, by their nature, are cheerful and upbeat are less prone to illness
than are those who are consistently grumpy malcontents.
Thus, the surly bird gets the germ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia
Today, John Copeland's diary is both, an informational source of
worldwide events and a recollection of John's daily life told in a
manner that I find very amusing.
Let's not forget that when one cares and demonstrates it by voicing our
point of view, it can indeed create lots of controversy.
Paul, try reading John's writings with a new perspective and you will
derive as much enjoyment as I and others do. Do not forget to focus in
the pictures he attaches to his diary as they are very pleasant to the
reader's eyes. They portray the sensitivity of the photographer and his
love for nature, order and beauty.
Best regards,
Paul Whitehead
<PCOB...@webtv.net> writes
>The past is gone!
>
Hey, don't get me wrong. I like John and his works.
Paul
--
Paul Whitehead
Paul Whitehead
g...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>Paul Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <36BD53FC...@geocities.com>, LL
>> <calli...@geocities.com> writes
>> >
>> >is this a newsgroup for mods?
>> >or am i just a fool?
>> >
>> Actually, this ng used to be a major hive of activity; discussion of
>> politics and everyday things. For a while it was dominated by those of a
>> Conservative disposition, but when the centre and left bit back; when
>> the Tories lost the last election in the UK, and when the right in the
>> States became obsessed with Monica's hidden bits (those that were in
>> inappropriate proximity to the president), the rightists fell apart in a
>> sulk.
>>
>
>That was one of the devastating centre or left contributions?
>
A summary of events with a touch of humour.
You ought to have been here after the May 1997 general election. John C
would confirm it; the angst by the right, the trail of tears, the
tantrums - and their compete disappearance from this ng. I guess they
are still in shock, and/or sucking their thumbs somewhere in a dark
corner. JC might not agree with my analysis of the right/Monica's bits
etc in the States, but what the hell, he and I don't agree on everything
- but probably, surprisingly, given our 'history' in something called
'Forum 74', quite a lot.
JC is lurking, so maybe he will say 'hello'.
Dr P
Graham Weeks
> A summary of events with a touch of humour.
>
> You ought to have been here after the May 1997 general election. John C
> would confirm it; the angst by the right, the trail of tears, the
> tantrums - and their compete disappearance from this ng. I guess they
> are still in shock, and/or sucking their thumbs somewhere in a dark
> corner. JC might not agree with my analysis of the right/Monica's bits
> etc in the States, but what the hell, he and I don't agree on everything
> - but probably, surprisingly, given our 'history' in something called
> 'Forum 74', quite a lot.
>
I remember it only too well. It was the night I discovered that troubles
are not soluble in whisky. However, for me it turned out to be training
for losing my own council seat last year.
John Copeland
<wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <36BD53FC...@geocities.com>, LL
>> <calli...@geocities.com> writes
>> >
>> >is this a newsgroup for mods?
>> >or am i just a fool?
>> >
>> Actually, this ng used to be a major hive of activity; discussion of
>> politics and everyday things. For a while it was dominated by those of a
>> Conservative disposition, but when the centre and left bit back; when
>> the Tories lost the last election in the UK, and when the right in the
>> States became obsessed with Monica's hidden bits (those that were in
>> inappropriate proximity to the president), the rightists fell apart in a
>> sulk.
>>
>
>That was one of the devastating centre or left contributions?
Graham,
Do you think there is any chance of getting the discussions going
again?
John
John Copeland
Geoff,
What about you putting in some subjects for discussion in this group?
They would be very welcome.
John
John Copeland
wrote:
>
>is this a newsgroup for mods?
>or am i just a fool?
Mods as opposed to what?
John Copeland
John Copeland
<weste...@western-pr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36C084...@dircon.co.uk>, Graham Weeks <weeks-
>g...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>>Paul Whitehead wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <36BD53FC...@geocities.com>, LL
>>> <calli...@geocities.com> writes
>>> >
>>> >is this a newsgroup for mods?
>>> >or am i just a fool?
>>> >
>>> Actually, this ng used to be a major hive of activity; discussion of
>>> politics and everyday things. For a while it was dominated by those of a
>>> Conservative disposition, but when the centre and left bit back; when
>>> the Tories lost the last election in the UK, and when the right in the
>>> States became obsessed with Monica's hidden bits (those that were in
>>> inappropriate proximity to the president), the rightists fell apart in a
>>> sulk.
>>>
>>
>>That was one of the devastating centre or left contributions?
>>
>
>A summary of events with a touch of humour.
>
>You ought to have been here after the May 1997 general election. John C
>would confirm it; the angst by the right, the trail of tears, the
>tantrums - and their compete disappearance from this ng. I guess they
>are still in shock, and/or sucking their thumbs somewhere in a dark
>corner. JC might not agree with my analysis of the right/Monica's bits
>etc in the States, but what the hell, he and I don't agree on everything
>- but probably, surprisingly, given our 'history' in something called
>'Forum 74', quite a lot.
>
>JC is lurking, so maybe he will say 'hello'.
Saying hello.
Maybe we can get the discussions going again in this newsgroup.
A few days ago, Max Belof in the London "Times" suggested that there
was a good deal of similarity between the tactics of Mr. Blair and
Hitler.
Clearly, the premise was well and truly over the top, and the
exclusion that Prof. Belof made - namely that Mr. Blair does not go in
for the same degree of violence - somewhat destroys his argument.
But I nevertheless feel that there are some worrying trends, if not
similarities, in what we are seeing day and what Germany experienced
between the wars. We are, for example, seeing the elimination, at
least as we know it, of the House of Lords, the excuse being made, as
Hitler made to justify the eradication of opposition, that the House
is undemocratic.
We are also seeing the increasing intolerance in our society, as the
removal of the England football manager, Mr. Hoddle, suggested.
Within the realms of political correctness, is seems that nobody must
be allowed to express views that do not accord with the Government's
thinking.
All very worrying, and with the country about to plunge into recession
- which will no doubt justify all manner of other extreme measures -
we may yet rue the day in electing a Socialist Government, even if it
has shed all its claims of being a left-wing government.
John
Paul Whitehead
<johnco...@clara.net> writes
>
>Maybe we can get the discussions going again in this newsgroup.
>
>A few days ago, Max Belof in the London "Times" suggested that there
>was a good deal of similarity between the tactics of Mr. Blair and
>Hitler.
>
perch. How long will the reich go on for? 5 years? 10? 20?
>But I nevertheless feel that there are some worrying trends, if not
>similarities, in what we are seeing day and what Germany experienced
>between the wars. We are, for example, seeing the elimination, at
>least as we know it, of the House of Lords, the excuse being made, as
>Hitler made to justify the eradication of opposition, that the House
>is undemocratic.
I do happen to agree with Blair on that one, though I do see value in a
place like the HoL, where the party line is not always towed and where
the unelected can lie back and take a broader view. However, it is
somewhat loaded with a number of somewhat reactionary toadies, if I can
be polite about it.
>
>We are also seeing the increasing intolerance in our society, as the
>removal of the England football manager, Mr. Hoddle, suggested.
On the other hand, people in society, including the Hoddles of this
world, should bear in mind that 'society' is a sort of family in which
we should not cast dispersions on disadvantaged groups within it. The
disabled have a hard enough time of it, without being loaded with a
guilt trip by the intellectually challenged who hold a high-ish office
and who thus get heard (ie, Hoddle).
>Within the realms of political correctness, is seems that nobody must
>be allowed to express views that do not accord with the Government's
>thinking.
>
Pace Thatcher. I think Labour is so confident in some respects that it
thinks it can get away with treating us like morons.
>All very worrying, and with the country about to plunge into recession
>- which will no doubt justify all manner of other extreme measures -
>we may yet rue the day in electing a Socialist Government
Ha, haw. Socialist? More like a sort of dictatorial, nannyish bunch of
Heathites. In this case, though, Blair is in the pocket of Bill
Clinton; Bill wants to bomb away, Tony joins in. Bill wants to load
Monsanto (read MonSatan) and other GM products on to us, Tony completely
caves in. Bill has been pressuring Blair & Co not to object to
MonSatan's desires on Europe, and we have seen the result.
>, even if it
>has shed all its claims of being a left-wing government.
Almost, but not quite, actually shed everything else of the left as
well.
>
>
Paul
--
Paul Whitehead
Paul Whitehead
g...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>Paul Whitehead wrote:
>
>> A summary of events with a touch of humour.
>>
>> You ought to have been here after the May 1997 general election. John C
>> would confirm it; the angst by the right, the trail of tears, the
>> tantrums - and their compete disappearance from this ng. I guess they
>> are still in shock, and/or sucking their thumbs somewhere in a dark
>> corner. JC might not agree with my analysis of the right/Monica's bits
>> etc in the States, but what the hell, he and I don't agree on everything
>> - but probably, surprisingly, given our 'history' in something called
>> 'Forum 74', quite a lot.
>>
>
>are not soluble in whisky. However, for me it turned out to be training
Ah well, don't worry too much. The wheel of fortune will eventually turn
your way again. Perhaps sooner than you think (on the other hand, or
later). All we need is a 'mad GM potato' scandal, some more nannying
and a big cock-up, and it's almost all yours again.
Paul
>
John Copeland
<weste...@western-pr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36c9967...@news.clara.net>, John Copeland
><johnco...@clara.net> writes
>>
>>Maybe we can get the discussions going again in this newsgroup.
>>
>>A few days ago, Max Belof in the London "Times" suggested that there
>>was a good deal of similarity between the tactics of Mr. Blair and
>>Hitler.
Paul,
You mentioned in your response that you felt that this was not a
leftwing Government.
Is this surprising? Or perhaps we should ask ourselves what really is
a leftwing Government today.
Presumably any genuine leftwing party today would not suggest a return
to nationalisation, for even with all the faults of privatisation -
pace the appalling railways and the abuse of the water companies, no
party would go backwards like that.
Similarly, presumably the excessive taxation of former Labour
govwernments has shown that this can be harmful to the economy.
Presumably the success of Mr. Blair is that he recognises that the old
Labour policies are as dead as the dodo, especially as they are never
likely to appeal to the electorate again.
Perhaps you could tell us what Mr. Blair SHOULD be doing?
John
Graham Weeks
>
> I do happen to agree with Blair on that one, though I do see value in a
> place like the HoL, where the party line is not always towed and where
> the unelected can lie back and take a broader view. However, it is
> somewhat loaded with a number of somewhat reactionary toadies, if I can
> be polite about it.
One should not be swift to replace something that has served well unless
you have something better to put in its place. What is it? No-one knows.
By the same logic of not democracy Blair should be abolishming the
monarchy.
> >We are also seeing the increasing intolerance in our society, as the
> >removal of the England football manager, Mr. Hoddle, suggested.
>
> On the other hand, people in society, including the Hoddles of this
> world, should bear in mind that 'society' is a sort of family in which
> we should not cast dispersions on disadvantaged groups within it. The
> disabled have a hard enough time of it, without being loaded with a
> guilt trip by the intellectually challenged who hold a high-ish office
> and who thus get heard (ie, Hoddle).
Hoddle is a fool outside of football. But to sack him for it is
intolerant and insulting to followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and
the New Agers just as much as his comments were perceived as insulting
to the disabled.
>
> Pace Thatcher. I think Labour is so confident in some respects that it
> thinks it can get away with treating us like morons.
Well most of the public behave as if they are.
>
> >All very worrying, and with the country about to plunge into recession
> >- which will no doubt justify all manner of other extreme measures -
> >we may yet rue the day in electing a Socialist Government
>
> Ha, haw. Socialist? More like a sort of dictatorial, nannyish bunch of
> Heathites. In this case, though, Blair is in the pocket of Bill
> Clinton; Bill wants to bomb away, Tony joins in. Bill wants to load
> Monsanto (read MonSatan) and other GM products on to us, Tony completely
> caves in. Bill has been pressuring Blair & Co not to object to
> MonSatan's desires on Europe, and we have seen the result.
I am not so scared of genetic modifications but apart from that I agree.
>
> >, even if it
> >has shed all its claims of being a left-wing government.
>
> Almost, but not quite, actually shed everything else of the left as
> well.
Not all bad then? Blair is Maggie's little monument but a very poor
likeness. He is even less like Cromwell. His warts are not on his face
but in his cabinet.
Paul Whitehead
g...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>By the same logic of not democracy Blair should be abolishming the
>monarchy.
Ah, indeed, though I think it is generally held in place because the
average Joe Soap vaguely thinks it OK.
>
>
>> >
>Hoddle is a fool outside of football. But to sack him for it is
>intolerant and insulting to followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and
>the New Agers just as much as his comments were perceived as insulting
>to the disabled.
Agreed on the whole. Even the Christians up until the 4th century
(circa) were into reincarnation, I believe.
However, the disabled have a hard time of it as it is, whereas the
various groups you mention don't.
>>
>>>
>>>Not all bad then? Blair is Maggie's little monument but a very poor
>likeness. He is even less like Cromwell. His warts are not on his face
>but in his cabinet.
>
The unfortunate thing is that politics attracts rather drab humanoids
with little vision. They pit themselves against each other. Labour
takes things further by pitting itself against that other sector with
little vision, much of the press.
Ah well, perhaps politics is now less to do with philosophy than with
mundane things, such as keeping the streets clean or holding 81 meetings
with GM companies since election day.
Paul
Paul Whitehead
<johnco...@clara.net> writes
John, I'm snowed under with work, so this one will have to be brief-ish.
It's 7.15 pm and I'm still working.
>he tactics of Mr. Blair and
>>>Hitler.
>
>Paul,
>
>You mentioned in your response that you felt that this was not a
>leftwing Government.
>
>Is this surprising?
Not all all. It's sucking up you Daily Mailsville.
> Or perhaps we should ask ourselves what really is
>a leftwing Government today.
Indeed! But at the very least, it should be 'something' that bears the
'social' (and hopefully the environment) in mind.
>
>Presumably any genuine leftwing party today would not suggest a return
>to nationalisation, for even with all the faults of privatisation -
>pace the appalling railways and the abuse of the water companies, no
>party would go backwards like that.
Yes.
>
>Similarly, presumably the excessive taxation of former Labour
>govwernments has shown that this can be harmful to the economy.
>
Well, different for the economy, at least.
>Presumably the success of Mr. Blair is that he recognises that the old
>Labour policies are as dead as the dodo, especially as they are never
>likely to appeal to the electorate again.
>
Labour got voted in because, in part, the voters wanted a tiny bit of
'socialism' (the bit, or bits, they feel comfortable with and that might
help them in some way, in some vague non materialistic way. Well, that's
my view, for what it's worth. But the voter is fickle!
>Perhaps you could tell us what Mr. Blair SHOULD be doing?
Time is required for that! Any anyway, I still think we're headed into a
new era, where labels will disappear somewhat. I think I argued this
before the last election.
With a bit of luck, Tony will eat a large pile of GM spuds, go mad and
we'll get a change of government (thus stopping us from getting too
bland and bored...and dispirited by the Thought Police).
Paul