Cain. no brain and possibly insane.
hmhawktoo
news:3fb2da33$1...@news.boards.ie:
>
>
> "hmhawktoo" <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:bou452$1iftio$2...@ID-111931.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3fb22b2a$1...@news.boards.ie:
> ..
>> >> > How many murders by loyalists since the GFA? How many by
>> >> > republicans? How many by the IRA? That's what counts.
>
>> >> Oh - pardon me. I don't have the definitive code here in my
>> >> pocket. But here, just for the sake of it - you tell me how many
>> >> there were.
>
>> > I rely on Cain, which is pretty clear about the pre- and post-
>> > levels of murder, and who was doing it. It stops at 2001, I'm
>> > afraid.
>
>> So where do you get your stuff about the IRA mrdering as much as
>> unionism then? Blowing yourself to pieces again Westy old chum.
>
> So you don't know and I don't know (post 2001 that is). Thing is, I'm
> not making any particular claims about relative levels of violence
> between the communities.
Then what the hell is this about then :-
"How many murders by loyalists since the GFA? How many by
republicans? How many by the IRA? That's what counts."
I'm claiming that overall violence has gone
> down. It's Hawk who's claiming
> that the violence from the loyalists is on a completely different
> scale to that from republicans.
You're dead bloody right I am! Daily intimidation and terrorising of
innocents. Kids bombed, shit thrown at them. Graveside ceremonies subject
to "protests". Ah I could go on and on.
That the IRA are doing
> nothing, and that loyalists are making life intolerable. The stats
> through 2001 certainly don't bear that out.
>
Oh the "stats". And only up to 2001. *sigh* Oh well if the stats don't show
it we'll just have to ignore what we hear about nightly and daily. Not in
the stats, they didn't happen.
> ..
>> > I'd have no problem whatsoever with a loyalist Loughall.
>
>> So you agree with me then? Go to the areas where they basically
>> advertise their terror campaign and close them down? Make the message
>> clear - it won't be tolerated anymore? That it Westy - you agree?
>
> I've made it clear, many times, that paramilitary activity is
> incompatible with the fulfillment of the GFA. Whether or not
> the police could do more to close down loyalism, it isn't going to be
> possible to act against the UDA while allowing
> the IRA to continue untouched,
Here we go again. Four suspensions. Some poor bloke in jail on the
flimsiest of evidence whilst psychopaths found with guns get bail.
Orangemen get a ticking off for Drumcree whilst forced "searches" go on for
evidence into the Castlereagh "spy ring". The UVF murder and Davy (poet)
Ervine continues on the election campaign (of course having made the usual
"condemnation"). Not a word said about it even though they have publically
stated they are on ceasefire. Ah it's sick - and so is any vestige of
credibility given to it.
even if the UDA is currently more
active.
"It's Hawk who's claiming that the violence from the loyalists is on a
completely different scale to that from republicans."
I'm getting tired now. That's what unionism does. Wears people down. But
this is what the Irish need to do. Challenge them on every point. They
*don't* have a solid foundation and *need* to face up to what they have
done, believe and perpetuate. Otherwise this island will never see peace.
>
> In any case, loyalist thugs are being killed regularly at the moment
> without noticeably improving the situation.
Oh well. We needn't bother with them then.
>
> Aha, says Hawk, not by the BA or RUC (for Hawk would never refer to
> the PSNI any more than he could bring himself to talk about
> Londonderry), who allow them their rampage unscathed.
Here we go again. PSNI and Londonderry. Better now Westy?
>
> Oho, says Westprog, or whatever sectarian epithet Hawk wishes to
> apply,
I think I'll go with Westprick for now.
didn't you claim that the loyalists were paid up stooges of the
> Brits -
Yeah. The links have been evidenced and documented pretty well. God this is
boring.
hence when the loyalists are shooting each other, is it not at
> the behest of
> the powerful secret unionist forces of the English establishment?
No. They do that all by themselves being the "brilliant guerilla army" they
are. The british establishment just uses them when needed. They're just
dolts - "brilliant" though they are.
>
> Such is the tangle a belief system can result in.
No better sentence to end on. None better at all.
Nik
That, is incontrovertible evidence of the bias in the British Justice
system...even that example of journalistic virtue, the BBC, tried to
deny Sinn Fein their just TV time...when the BBC is behaving like
that...who else is also but is covering it up so bigotry doesn't look
like bigotry...
>Orangemen get a ticking off for Drumcree whilst forced "searches" go on for
>evidence into the Castlereagh "spy ring".
Westie, can you tell me that you honestly believe that the IRA walked
into Castlereagh PSNI Special Branch HQ, spent 90 minutes in there,
beat up a PSNI officer, all the while speaking in English accents,
knowing exactly where the relevant files were all the while unmasked
and then simply walked out of there unmolested?
Can you tell me that, with a straight face?
> The UVF murder and Davy (poet)
>Ervine continues on the election campaign (of course having made the usual
>"condemnation"). Not a word said about it even though they have publically
>stated they are on ceasefire. Ah it's sick - and so is any vestige of
>credibility given to it.
>
>
>even if the UDA is currently more
>active.
>
>"It's Hawk who's claiming that the violence from the loyalists is on a
>completely different scale to that from republicans."
>
>I'm getting tired now. That's what unionism does. Wears people down. But
>this is what the Irish need to do. Challenge them on every point. They
>*don't* have a solid foundation and *need* to face up to what they have
>done, believe and perpetuate. Otherwise this island will never see peace.
>
>>
>> In any case, loyalist thugs are being killed regularly at the moment
Are they? Who by? When? Where?
>> without noticeably improving the situation.
If enough of them die by the bullets of other loyalist paramilitaries
then eventually it will....
>Oh well. We needn't bother with them then.
>
>> Aha, says Hawk, not by the BA or RUC (for Hawk would never refer to
>> the PSNI any more than he could bring himself to talk about
>> Londonderry), who allow them their rampage unscathed.
>
>Here we go again. PSNI and Londonderry. Better now Westy?
>
>> Oho, says Westprog, or whatever sectarian epithet Hawk wishes to
>> apply,
>
>
>I think I'll go with Westprick for now.
>
>
>didn't you claim that the loyalists were paid up stooges of the
>> Brits -
>
>Yeah. The links have been evidenced and documented pretty well. God this is
>boring.
The Stevens Report. You can download it from here:
Nik
westprog
"Nik" <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote in message news:tgr8rv4sg60ec3i55...@4ax.com...
> On 13 Nov 2003 11:35:33 GMT, hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote:
..
> Westie, can you tell me that you honestly believe that the IRA walked
> into Castlereagh PSNI Special Branch HQ, spent 90 minutes in there,
> beat up a PSNI officer, all the while speaking in English accents,
> knowing exactly where the relevant files were all the while unmasked
> and then simply walked out of there unmolested?
> Can you tell me that, with a straight face?
I haven't said anything about it. I don't know what happened, so I restrain
my comments.
But since Nik has joined the discussion - can you tell me that the IRA are
not engaged
in any illegal activities, such as punishment beatings, at present? Even
while
giggling behind your hand.
It's then a matter of an acceptable level of violence. IMO permitting the
IRA to carry
out punishment beatings legitimises the loyalist drug dealers. It subverts
society. The paramilitaries need to either disarm, or else be entirely criminalised.
..
> >> In any case, loyalist thugs are being killed regularly at the moment
> Are they? Who by? When? Where?
By loyalist thugs. Don't you watch the news?
> >> without noticeably improving the situation.
> If enough of them die by the bullets of other loyalist paramilitaries
> then eventually it will....
The INLA solution?
C/
SOTW: "Knight Moves" - Suzanne Vega
NEIL GAIMAN IN DUBLIN:
Neil Gaiman is to appear in the Dublin Bookshop on Grafton Street next Monday.
The full details, as taken from his website, are:
Date: 17 November 2003
Time: 19:00
Neil Gaiman will be talking about and reading from ‘The Wolves in the Walls’
and ‘Coraline’ at The Dublin Bookshop, 36 Grafton Street, Dublin 2.
More details at http://www.neilgaiman.com/where/where.asp
michael adams
"Conor Booze O Brien" <conor...@hatemail.com> wrote in message
news:g399rv4hdffv024q9...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Nov 2003 08:41:56 GMT, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Can you tell me that, with a straight face?
>
> >I haven't said anything about it. I don't know what happened, so I
restrain
> >my comments.
>
>
>
> Conor
Of course not. He only posts on here so he can Spam authors and
bookshops to his hearts content. This Gamain character he's spamming
at presnt is apparently a best selling author - published by Harper
Collins - with no Irish connections as far as I can see anyway. Whether
digital gets a discount as as result of his repeatedly spamming the
Dublin Bookshop on SCI is something for him to say.
Cos if he doesn't.....
michael obnoxious adams
...
>
michael adams
>
> He may have a professional interest. He's a bit of a wee writer
> himself, is Westie,
>
>
> Conor
You don't mean this, do you ?
http://www.slovobooks.com/phoenix/A009.html
Almost worth a new thread on its own.
Go on.....I'll leave it up to you.
Off to the oxfam bookshop.
michael obnoxious adams
westprog
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>"Conor Booze O Brien" <conor...@hatemail.com> wrote in message
>news:g399rv4hdffv024q9...@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Nov 2003 08:41:56 GMT, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Can you tell me that, with a straight face?
>>
>> >I haven't said anything about it. I don't know what happened, so I
>restrain
>> >my comments.
>> Never stopped you before!
>Of course not. He only posts on here so he can Spam authors and
>bookshops to his hearts content. This Gamain character he's spamming
>at presnt is apparently a best selling author - published by Harper
>Collins - with no Irish connections as far as I can see anyway. Whether
>digital gets a discount as as result of his repeatedly spamming the
>Dublin Bookshop on SCI is something for him to say.
>Cos if he doesn't.....
Well, MI5 don't pay that well. Have to supplement my income somehow.
michael adams
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:09:52 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Conor Booze O Brien" <conor...@hatemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2kg9rvkdcrfki0tdj...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> He may have a professional interest. He's a bit of a wee writer
> >> himself, is Westie,
> >>
> >>
> >> Conor
> >
> >
> >
> >You don't mean this, do you ?
> >
> >http://www.slovobooks.com/phoenix/A009.html
> >
> >Almost worth a new thread on its own.
>
> would expect.
...
verrry gooooood!
(Terry Thomas)
....
>
> >Go on.....I'll leave it up to you.
> >
> >Off to the oxfam bookshop.
>
> Do you trade these books?
>
>
Actually I wasn't off to oxfam. That was a jokey ref to the
other thread.
In answer to your question though, nope. Some collectors claim to
finance their hobby by doing so, but I've never sold a book in my
life. I just accumulate duplicate copies of favourite books instead.
The prices you can get on Ebay are (to me at least) far too low,
and whenever I buy a book on there I wonder how anyone can make
any money at it, if you cost the time you take to find the stock,
and then pack the things etc etc.
The yanks on the book group claim to be able to pick up saleable
books for peanuts but Oxfam for one, are getting quite pricey nowadays.
And sorting through jumble sales and car boot sales begins to pall
after a few years. I only ever buy stuff that appeals to me personally
And ebay and the internet means the days of wandering through the
basements of Charing Cross Road bookshops and elswhere in London are
now long gone. I never pay prices where I could demand very good\fine
condition anyway, important to collectors and hard to judge over the
web, but I've had no problems with poor descriptions so far You can find
books on the web that you'd never find in a lifetime otherwise. I used
a book search service once many years ago - but there were condition
problems with a number of the books which were harder to resolve with a
middleman involved.
And sorting through places stacked out with books like Hay on Wye is
almost enough to put anyone off of collecting althogether. I used to visit
three bookshops in Richmond quite regularly as well - the guy in Paradise
Rd who gets loads of Review Copies, the s\h basement in the small bookshop
in the alley by the William Hickey Church, and the one at the foot of
the Hill for odds and ends. Better than any of these though was the
Guildhall Bookshop in Twickenham. Now long gone. The Gloucester Rd
bookshop still gets the odd visit though as they often have odd good
stuff downstairs. Runs of Design Magazine from the 60's and 70's at
50p a throw most recently. Oh and I used to go to Farringndon Rd
on Saturday morning when there were the stalls, and you'd all be
waiting and fighting for position as the bookseller pulled the
tarpaulins off of each of the stalls in turn. They were owned by
the one family who then opened a bookshop at the corner of Goswell
Rd IIRR in the City. But that's been closed around two years now
as well.
These weren't bought off the web though.
http://members.tripod.com/mjadams25/penguins/index.html
This is part of a bigger project. Some of the rest is on the .com
site, which nosey people could do a Whois search on. Silly me for
using my proper address. Oops!
bibliomaniac
michael adams
"westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fb4d5a4$1...@news.boards.ie...
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >Whether digital gets a discount as as result of his repeatedly
> >spamming the Dublin Bookshop on SCI is something for him to say.
>
> >Cos if he doesn't.....
>
> Well, MI5 don't pay that well. Have to supplement my income somehow.
>
...
It's performance related.
But you weren't told.
They operate on the need-to-know principle.
michael obnoxious adams
...
Nik
>
>
>"Nik" <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote in message news:tgr8rv4sg60ec3i55...@4ax.com...
>> On 13 Nov 2003 11:35:33 GMT, hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote:
>..
>> Westie, can you tell me that you honestly believe that the IRA walked
>> into Castlereagh PSNI Special Branch HQ, spent 90 minutes in there,
>> beat up a PSNI officer, all the while speaking in English accents,
>> knowing exactly where the relevant files were all the while unmasked
>> and then simply walked out of there unmolested?
>
>> Can you tell me that, with a straight face?
>
>I haven't said anything about it. I don't know what happened, so I restrain
>my comments.
>
>But since Nik has joined the discussion - can you tell me that the IRA are
>not engaged in any illegal activities, such as punishment beatings, at present?
I'm almost certain that they are. I don't support punishment beatings
myself but its not my place to tell them what to do and what not to
do. In any event, I'm expecting that all to come to a permanent end in
the reasonably near future.
> Even while giggling behind your hand.
Don't misrepresent me. It does neither of us any favours.
>It's then a matter of an acceptable level of violence. IMO permitting the
>IRA to carry out punishment beatings legitimises the loyalist drug dealers. It subverts
>society. The paramilitaries need to either disarm, or else be entirely criminalised.
Like I've already said, I don't support the punishment beatings. If I
was given an opportunity to vote on it then I would vote against it.
>> >> In any case, loyalist thugs are being killed regularly at the moment
>
>> Are they? Who by? When? Where?
>
>By loyalist thugs. Don't you watch the news?
Ah yeah. I just wanted you to say it. I can't say that I'm terribly
sad about them killing each other...
>> >> without noticeably improving the situation.
>
>> If enough of them die by the bullets of other loyalist paramilitaries
>> then eventually it will....
>
>The INLA solution?
I'm not going to stop them killing each other.
Nik
Bertie the Bunyip
news:tflarv0lj8ijqjsh3...@4ax.com:
Awww, aren't you a peach?
Bertie
hmhawktoo
>
> I noticed that some years ago. I used to pop into their place in
> Putney,
I used to
>>visit three bookshops in Richmond quite regularly as well>
>
Yup, good for relatively cheap hardbacks and academic books.
>
>>the s\h basement in the small bookshop
>>in the alley by the William Hickey Church,
>
> That was my favourite. He had quite a large selection.
>
>> and the one at the foot of
>>the Hill for odds and ends.
>
> Waterstones
>
>> Better than any of these though was the Guildhall Bookshop in
Twickenham. The Gloucester Rd bookshop still gets the odd visit though as
they often have odd good stuff downstairs. Oh and I used to go to
Farringndon Rd.......Goswell Rd IIRR in the City. But that's been closed
I KNEW it Ken. Don't you give me any of that crap about true Belfast men
now! Your games up mate and you've been caught! Try to fool a " good dacent
Kalleek mawn wudd ye? Heh!!
westprog
IMO, there will be an opportunity for the people of NI to vote against
punishment beatings, terrorism, sectarianism and general thuggery, and
I expect them to spurn that chance.
The point I was making was that IRA activity, while at a lower level
(apparently) than the loyalists, has not ceased. As long as one terrorist
group continues to operate, it lends implicit support for the right of other
terrorist groups to continue to do what they want.
That's why it is very dangerous to regard any kind of terrorist activity
as
acceptable. It isn't possible to say on the one hand that kneecapping a
catholic is OK, but burning a catholic family out isn't.
Political progress is not something that precedes the end of the violence.
The
two things must synchronise. There is no chance of a final political solution
while terrorist activities continue with an association with the political
partners. There has to be a sharp dividing line.
C/
SOTW: "We're A Happy Family" - The Ramones
Dr Vivian Murstell II
> >>
> >> Do you trade these books?
> >
> >Actually I wasn't off to oxfam. That was a jokey ref to the
> >other thread.
> >
> >In answer to your question though, nope. Some collectors claim to
> >finance their hobby by doing so, but I've never sold a book in my
> >life. I just accumulate duplicate copies of favourite books instead.
>
I've just gone and done a rough count
This calculation is live
It was. I have a hardware conflict with the modem and so sometimes
when contact is lost withh the ISP the thing freezes up
and so I just lost five minutes work.
Altogether about 3,400
That's the good stuff.
I worked out that over 40 years that's about a book
and a half a week.
...
>
> And what are your favourite books?
...
The one I'm reading at that moment. i.e them all at one time
or another. Really good books stand a lot of re-reading
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which ones would I save in a fire? The 18th century editions
of Swift etc simply for their historical significance. Plus two
battered cookbooks for purely sentimental family reasons.
...
>
> >The prices you can get on Ebay are (to me at least) far too low,
> >and whenever I buy a book on there I wonder how anyone can make
> >any money at it, if you cost the time you take to find the stock,
> >and then pack the things etc etc.
> >
> >The yanks on the book group claim to be able to pick up saleable
> >books for peanuts but Oxfam for one, are getting quite pricey nowadays.
>
> I noticed that some years ago. I used to pop into their place in
> Putney, and they were charging much more than any of the other charity
> shops.
>
...
That's a bone of contention with runners, scouts, (i.e middlemen)
and dealers, as they claim its depriving them of a good source of
stock. A topic done to death in the book group.
....
> I wasn't even aware that they had dedicated bookshops now. But there
> are plenty of damaged stock bookshops about these days that seem
> cheaper even than Oxfam was.
...
They used to be solely remainder shops. Selling publishers ends
of runs - i.e remainders. They often marked them across the bottom.
Years ago they were mainly in Charing Cross Rd. Nowadays they publish
solely for that market and such shops are all over the place.
...
>
> >And sorting through jumble sales and car boot sales begins to pall
> >after a few years. I only ever buy stuff that appeals to me personally
>
> Like what?
Penguins
Social History
Biography
Books of Old Photos
Anything design 30's to 70's
Coffe Table various
Anything Cacti
Books about books
Reference books atlases
Not that many truly collectible from such sources though.
Very little fiction except Rumpole stories having found a mint
second omnibus for 25P once.
...
>
> >And ebay and the internet means the days of wandering through the
> >basements of Charing Cross Road bookshops and elswhere in London are
> >now long gone. I never pay prices where I could demand very good\fine
> >condition anyway, important to collectors and hard to judge over the
> >web, but I've had no problems with poor descriptions so far You can find
> >books on the web that you'd never find in a lifetime otherwise. I used
> >a book search service once many years ago - but there were condition
> >problems with a number of the books which were harder to resolve with a
> >middleman involved.
> >
> >And sorting through places stacked out with books like Hay on Wye is
> >almost enough to put anyone off of collecting althogether. I used to
visit
> >three bookshops in Richmond quite regularly as well - the guy in
Paradise
> >Rd who gets loads of Review Copies,
>
> Yup, good for relatively cheap hardbacks and academic books.
>
> >the s\h basement in the small bookshop
> >in the alley by the William Hickey Church,
>
> That was my favourite. He had quite a large selection.
>
> > and the one at the foot of
> >the Hill for odds and ends.
>
> Waterstones
...
Nar! Past the Coffee Bar, the clothes shop the guitar shop
and the antique shop on the actual hill itself. Always painted
black. A bit run down looking with a step up half way into the
shop. Probably no longer there.
...
>
> > Better than any of these though was the
> >Guildhall Bookshop in Twickenham. Now long gone. The Gloucester Rd
> >bookshop still gets the odd visit though as they often have odd good
> >stuff downstairs. Runs of Design Magazine from the 60's and 70's at
> >50p a throw most recently. Oh and I used to go to Farringndon Rd
> >on Saturday morning when there were the stalls, and you'd all be
> >waiting and fighting for position as the bookseller pulled the
> >tarpaulins off of each of the stalls in turn. They were owned by
> >the one family who then opened a bookshop at the corner of Goswell
> >Rd IIRR in the City. But that's been closed around two years now
> >as well.
>
> So you're really into this then. It sounds though as if you wouldn't
> really get a chance to read much of them though, and that you're just
> fascinated by the objects themselves.
...
That's exactly what furniture removers are reputed to say whenever
they move loads of books. "Don't read all these do you?" Philistine!
a) the statistic quoted above comes to one and a half books a week.
b) Most of them are non fiction and few if any have never been
consulted if not read cover to cover.
c) Favourites may well be duplicated.
d) The thing about books is that that are both objects in themsleves
and convey language and meaning in an almost magical way.
e) If you have what's called a historical imagination, reading Swift
in a 1710 edition can add whole new dimension. If you haven't, it
will leave you wondering what all the fuss is about.
f) A love and respect for books, and the habit of looking after them
was inculcated at school by the Master in charge of the library.
"The laibraiary" and "The enquairing maind" were two phrases he
was always repeating. That was Mr Currie.
...
>
> >These weren't bought off the web though.
> >
> >http://members.tripod.com/mjadams25/penguins/index.html
> >
> >This is part of a bigger project. Some of the rest is on the .com
> >site, which nosey people could do a Whois search on. Silly me for
> >using my proper address. Oops!
>
> This one?
>
> http://www.michaeladams.org/
>
> or this?
>
> http://www.mjadams.com/
>
I could be crosssing sworeds with Heading there!
Nice tries but no. And a bit alarming.
My .com adress has a business name. And like all good business
names it contains an "X". That's all you're going to find out from me.
If you want a laugh, have a look over at the book group. Yamamato jumped
out of his pram, and has been run over by a lorry yet again. Some people
just never learn.
Vivian
Nik
Tell me why you believe this please?
> and I expect them to spurn that chance.
Why?
>The point I was making was that IRA activity, while at a lower level
>(apparently) than the loyalists, has not ceased. As long as one terrorist
>group continues to operate, it lends implicit support for the right of other
>terrorist groups to continue to do what they want.
Can we puhleeze avoid using the term 'terrorist' in this context? Its
hopelessly politically loaded.
I'd have no issue if you were to speak about 'atrocities' committed by
either 'side'...it is much clearer and less loaded.
>That's why it is very dangerous to regard any kind of terrorist activity
>as acceptable.
By definition its unacceptable by those who use the word...your
comment is a truism and doesn't add a single thing to the discussion.
> It isn't possible to say on the one hand that kneecapping a
>catholic is OK, but burning a catholic family out isn't.
Like I've said, I personally, don't support punishment beatings and I
expect that the day when they no longer happen, on the Republican side
of the divide isn't far away. I cannot make the same claim about the
Loyalists though.
>Political progress is not something that precedes the end of the violence.
>The two things must synchronise. There is no chance of a final political solution
>while terrorist activities continue with an association with the political
>partners. There has to be a sharp dividing line.
Well, from where I'm sitting, I think that my beloved party leader
agrees with you there.
Nik
westprog
Nik <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2003 13:18:55 GMT, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Like I've already said, I don't support the punishment beatings. If
I
>>>> was given an opportunity to vote on it then I would vote against it.
>>IMO, there will be an opportunity for the people of NI to vote against
>>punishment beatings, terrorism, sectarianism and general thuggery,
>Tell me why you believe this please?
There are parties which have connections to terrorist organisations. There
are
parties which overwhelmingly represent just one section of the community.
The
electorate could vote against them.
>> and I expect them to spurn that chance.
>Why?
Why do I believe this? Because that's been the trend of NI politics for a
long,
long time. Why they do this is another matter.
>>The point I was making was that IRA activity, while at a lower level
>>(apparently) than the loyalists, has not ceased. As long as one terrorist
>>group continues to operate, it lends implicit support for the right of
other
>>terrorist groups to continue to do what they want.
>Can we puhleeze avoid using the term 'terrorist' in this context? Its
>hopelessly politically loaded.
I use it to refer to illegal organisations which terrorise people, by
committing criminal acts.
>I'd have no issue if you were to speak about 'atrocities' committed by
>either 'side'...it is much clearer and less loaded.
A lot of people don't regard shooting a drug dealer or paedophile as an
atrocious thing to do. It is terrorism though.
>>That's why it is very dangerous to regard any kind of terrorist activity
>>as acceptable.
>By definition its unacceptable by those who use the word...your
>comment is a truism and doesn't add a single thing to the discussion.
It's activity that's against the law, intended to terrify people.
..
Nik
>
>Nik <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote:
>>On 15 Nov 2003 13:18:55 GMT, "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>..
>>>>> Like I've already said, I don't support the punishment beatings. If
>I
>>>>> was given an opportunity to vote on it then I would vote against it.
>
>>>IMO, there will be an opportunity for the people of NI to vote against
>>>punishment beatings, terrorism, sectarianism and general thuggery,
>
>>Tell me why you believe this please?
>
>There are parties which have connections to terrorist organisations. There
>are parties which overwhelmingly represent just one section of the community.
And represent their specific interests. I have no beef with that. Its
called democracy.
>The electorate could vote against them.
>>> and I expect them to spurn that chance.
>
>>Why?
>
>Why do I believe this? Because that's been the trend of NI politics for a
>long, long time.
I get what you're saying here and it is correct.
> Why they do this is another matter.
Perceived self-preservation is a strong motivator.
>>>The point I was making was that IRA activity, while at a lower level
>>>(apparently) than the loyalists, has not ceased. As long as one terrorist
>>>group continues to operate, it lends implicit support for the right of
>other terrorist groups to continue to do what they want.
Well the Ra have been decommissioning without a substantial act by the
'other side'...
>>Can we puhleeze avoid using the term 'terrorist' in this context? Its
>>hopelessly politically loaded.
>
>I use it to refer to illegal organisations which terrorise people, by
>committing criminal acts.
I dare say that the RAF activity in Germany during WWII was a criminal
act in the eyes of the German government.
>>I'd have no issue if you were to speak about 'atrocities' committed by
>>either 'side'...it is much clearer and less loaded.
>
>A lot of people don't regard shooting a drug dealer or paedophile as an
>atrocious thing to do. It is terrorism though.
Not in my book it isn't. "Terrorism" is to me a matter of perception.
President Bush is labelling guerilla fighters in Iraq as being
'terrorists' when what they are is rather more clearly, 'guerillas'.
Not that I support them but I'm making a point about the term
'terrorist'. It is a convenient label for people to use so they can
stop thinking about what the motivations behind the violence might be.
It only serves to maintain the greivance and consequently prolong the
violence....
>>>That's why it is very dangerous to regard any kind of terrorist activity
>>>as acceptable.
>
>>By definition its unacceptable by those who use the word...your
>>comment is a truism and doesn't add a single thing to the discussion.
>
>It's activity that's against the law, intended to terrify people.
Like I said, the actions of the RAF in Germany in WWII terrified a
fair few innocent German civillians...not to mention Oliver Cromwell,
Prince Billy and their land grabs.
It used to be against the law in Ireland for Catholics to buy land of
anyone else than another Catholic. Just because something is or isn't
'the law' doesn't make it right.
The Penal Laws are testament to that fact. Would you like me to
publish them, again?
Nik
Trefford
news:ga5drvgkfisv23h8d...@4ax.com:
Pretty much you like to avoid using the term Nazi, eh nazi boy?
Bertie
michael adams
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:59:59 -0000, "Dr Vivian Murstell II"
> <Murstell@.hist.tooting.ac> wrote:
>
>
>
> >d) The thing about books is that that are both objects in themsleves
> > and convey language and meaning in an almost magical way.
>
> Hmmm. I mentioned that before when I was discussing early readers of
> books.
>
> >e) If you have what's called a historical imagination, reading Swift
> > in a 1710 edition can add whole new dimension. If you haven't, it
> > will leave you wondering what all the fuss is about.
>
> I know. I mentioned that too.
.....
Historical imagination?
You mentioned this where exactly?
And you have this yourself do you?
And what about that secondhand bookshop at the bottom of
Richmond Hill just up from the Music Shop and the antique shop.
Is it still there, do you know ?
...
>
> >> >These weren't bought off the web though.
> >> >
> >> >http://members.tripod.com/mjadams25/penguins/index.html
> >> >
> >> >This is part of a bigger project. Some of the rest is on the .com
> >> >site, which nosey people could do a Whois search on. Silly me for
> >> >using my proper address. Oops!
> >>
> >> This one?
> >>
> >> http://www.michaeladams.org/
> >>
> >> or this?
> >>
> >> http://www.mjadams.com/
> >>
> >
> >I could be crosssing sworeds with Heading there!
> >
> >
> >Nice tries but no. And a bit alarming.
> >
> >My .com adress has a business name. And like all good business
> >names it contains an "X". That's all you're going to find out from me.
>
> What sort of business are you in then?
>
...
I said I had a website with a business name not that I'm in
business as such. If I said any more you wouldn't believe me
anyway so there's no point. Lets just say there are things
I'm responsible for that are featured on various websites on
Google. And I occasionaly publicise some of those on my own
site as well. Although I post under my own name on here, I regard
having a website or a business under your own name as incredibly
naff as it happens.
...
> And how could anyone whois it unless they knew the url?
...
Exactly. Which is why I'm not posting it on here. I made a big mistake
when registering it in giving my correct address. I didn't realise
they don't bother checking the address you give. Well Tripod
didn't anyway.
...
Other Group .
>
>
...
I don't know if you looked over there but he's at it again.
A newbie asks a question.
One regular answers it in his own way.
Rather than ignore the first answer and simply give his own reply
Yamo goes out of his way to quote the first answer, suggest that its
too limited, and then give his own answer.
michael adams
...
hmhawktoo
>
> Don't be stupid, the IRA ARE terrorists! always have been
> same goes for their Loyalists counterparts
>
> THEY are TERRORISTS
> THEY are TERRORISTS
> THEY are TERRORISTS
> THEY are TERRORISTS
> THEY are TERRORISTS
No honestly Tel. Do you think the IRA are terrorists?
Nik
So let me get this straight, you, Telmey, think that the IRA are
terrorists, in the present sense?
Nik
bro
"Chesney Christ" <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DCoy5vQp$$t$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> X-No-Archive:yes A certain Nik, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>
> >The Penal Laws are testament to that fact. Would you like me to
> >publish them, again?
>
> boring at this point. Is it because you want to steer the thread towards
> the things that you know about ?
maybe he's hoping someone will argue the point, so that he can accuse them
of living in the past
bro
"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the IRA" - nik
Nik
>
>"Chesney Christ" <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:DCoy5vQp$$t$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> X-No-Archive:yes A certain Nik, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>>
>> >The Penal Laws are testament to that fact. Would you like me to
>> >publish them, again?
>>
>> Why do you keep bringing up the Penal Laws and Dresden ? It's so fucking
>> boring at this point. Is it because you want to steer the thread towards
>> the things that you know about ?
>
>maybe he's hoping someone will argue the point, so that he can accuse them
>of living in the past
I won't do that.
You already know that so don't misrepresent me.
Nik
Bertie the Bunyip
news:2cvfrvcr5h5pshkfv...@4ax.com:
Betcha Njikky doesn't care what you think anyway.
He's going to think what njikky is going to think and fuck anyonewho thinks
different,
Right njiky?
BTW, better hide that dope you have growing in the closet..
Don't say I didn't tel you!
Bertie
bro
"Nik" <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote in message
are you saying you've never done that, or that you never will again?
> You already know that so don't misrepresent me.
i wouldn't dream of it
"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the IRA" - nik
hm... it's all very confusing. just so i can't possibly be accused of
misrepresenting you, are there only certain parts of the past you'd like to
avoid, or should we drop all of it now? should we maybe just drop the stuff
that's in living memory or experience of say, myself, and only bring up
stuff which was so long ago that no-one alive can possibly claim to have
suffered over it, like, say... the penal laws? if i can find someone who was
in dresden during the war would you agree to stop saying 'wot about
dresden?' every time someone objects to being murdered?
maybe you should write an official sci history book that we can all use. you
could start with friendly vikings failing to spreading humanitarian
religions to ireland by cutting the heads off monks and stealing their gold
(but in a good way), jump to the penal laws, stick in a chapter about easter
1916, then skip to a concluding chapter on loyalist pipebombs, not
forgetting to mention how it was sorta just like dresden the day you toured
belfast, but without the gerrymandering and the decimation of the
surrounding 100,000 square miles. life would be so much simpler. i could do
you some nice illustrations, if you like.
bro
"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the RAF or cromwell or anyone
even remotely associated with the concept of britishness" - nik*
*obviously not 'the' nik
Nik
>"Nik" <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote in message
>news:9bhgrvcn04mau0he9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:10:24 GMT, "bro" <b...@swamp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Chesney Christ" <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:DCoy5vQp$$t$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> >> X-No-Archive:yes A certain Nik, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>> >>
>> >> >The Penal Laws are testament to that fact. Would you like me to
>> >> >publish them, again?
>> >>
>> >> Why do you keep bringing up the Penal Laws and Dresden ? It's so
>fucking boring at this point. Is it because you want to steer the thread
>towards the things that you know about ?
>> >
>> >maybe he's hoping someone will argue the point, so that he can accuse
>them of living in the past
>>
>> I won't do that.
>are you saying you've never done that, or that you never will again?
I will not use the accusation of "you're living in the past" against
anyone here. I will ask though, when does Irish history become
relevant to the question of the North?
1169? 1690? 1798? 1803? 1916? 1922-23? 1960? 1964? 1965? 1969? when?
>> You already know that so don't misrepresent me.
>
>i wouldn't dream of it
Liar.
>"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the IRA" - nik
Dates and time posted please. A Google link will probably suffice.
>hm... it's all very confusing.
Go ahead confuse yourself.
>just so i can't possibly be accused of
>misrepresenting you, are there only certain parts of the past you'd like to
>avoid,
No, as far as I'm concerned, its all fair game.
> or should we drop all of it now?
You'd like that wouldn't you?
>should we maybe just drop the stuff
>that's in living memory or experience of say, myself,
Ahhhh...so its living memory that counts for you? Regardless of the
historical facts that led up to the situation as it is today?
Why is that then?
> and only bring up stuff which was so long ago that no-one alive can possibly claim to have
>suffered over it, like, say... the penal laws?
The penal laws are still alive in sentiment. They're still alive in
the sentiment of those who protest disgracefully at the not
particularly offensive behaviour of walking children to school.
> if i can find someone who was
>in dresden during the war would you agree to stop saying 'wot about
>dresden?'
No.
> every time someone objects to being murdered?
It is fair to object to being murdered. To suggest that I think
otherwise is to knock over yet another straw man.
>maybe you should write an official sci history book that we can all use. you
>could start with friendly vikings failing to spreading humanitarian
>religions to ireland by cutting the heads off monks and stealing their gold
>(but in a good way),
Have I ever suggested that that was done in a "good way"?
> jump to the penal laws, stick in a chapter about easter
>1916, then skip to a concluding chapter on loyalist pipebombs, not
>forgetting to mention how it was sorta just like dresden the day you toured
>belfast, but without the gerrymandering and the decimation of the
>surrounding 100,000 square miles. life would be so much simpler. i could do
>you some nice illustrations, if you like.
Go ahead knock yourself out.
>"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the RAF or cromwell or anyone
>even remotely associated with the concept of britishness" - nik*
>
>*obviously not 'the' nik
Obviously not. A fair few straw men fell over today though. You must
be happy. Pathetic.
Nik
michael adams
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:48:59 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >Historical imagination?
> >
> >You mentioned this where exactly?
> >
> >And you have this yourself do you?
>
> Of course. I introduced to to the notion.
...
Did you heck! You claim to live in Richmond. Exactly 400 years
ago a few months back - someone rode out on horseback or in a coach
through the Gate of Richmond Palace - one of the few original bits left,
in the early hours of the morning - at the start of a Journey to Scotland
informing James the IV of Scotland that Queen Elizabeth had just died.
I know it's of no immediate concern to you, but did anyone turn up
do you know?
...
>
> >And what about that secondhand bookshop at the bottom of
> >Richmond Hill just up from the Music Shop and the antique shop.
> >Is it still there, do you know ?
>
> No. It's not there. There was a bric-a-brac shop that had a few books
> outside the window but nothing dedicated to books.
...
I'll have to get down there to take a look. Richmond Hill's a
good test on the bike so I never really looked the last few times
I went past there. Followed by 3 circuits of the Park within the
hour - its just over 7 miles round dontchaknow.
...
?
>
> >I said I had a website with a business name not that I'm in
> >business as such. If I said any more you wouldn't believe me
> >anyway so there's no point.
>
> Nah. Gwan.
...
No. It'll be the growlers all over again.
..
>
> >Exactly. Which is why I'm not posting it on here.
>
> Email me.
...
I would only do that if I could win a cast-iron guaranteed bet.
Anyway, what do you do for a living?
Come on! Answer!
michael inquisitive adams
...
michael adams
> >at the start of a Journey to Scotland
> >informing James the IV of Scotland that Queen Elizabeth had just died.
> >I know it's of no immediate concern to you, but did anyone turn up
> >do you know?
>
> I'm sure Dee was there.
...
The John Dee Society you mean? Or Dee in ghostly form ?
...
> >>
> >> No. It's not there. There was a bric-a-brac shop that had a few books
> >> outside the window but nothing dedicated to books.
>
> >I'll have to get down there to take a look.
>
> No need. There's none there.
...
It would stil be nice to see what its changed into. Because I'm now
even having trouble picturing it my head. The bric a brac shop I can
picture quite easily.
...
> >> Nah. Gwan.
>
> >No. It'll be the growlers all over again.
>
> Let's hear it.
>
> >> >Exactly. Which is why I'm not posting it on here.
> >>
> >> Email me.
>
> >I would only do that if I could win a cast-iron guaranteed bet.
>
> So gwan have a bet then!
...
Given that you're so tight apparently that you begrudge paying a
penny more than necessry in a charity bookshop I can just imagine
the job I'd have getting money out of the likes of you.
...
>
> >Anyway, what do you do for a living?
> >
> >Come on! Answer!
>
> You first.
>
>
...
But you've not even revealed you true name yet, have you?
michael sceptical adams
...
Bóliath
> "bro" wrote:
>
>>"stop bringing up past atrocities committed by the IRA" - nik
>
> Dates and time posted please. A Google link will probably suffice.
From: Nik <another...@the.dust>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.irish,uk.current-events.n-ireland
Subject: Re: Motorman Shooting Must Be Reopened
Message-ID: <6hb6qvst222f0oar2...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:20:28 +1300
"Well you move on too then and stop bringing up past atrocities
committed by the IRA..."
In response to Telmey
michael adams
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:15:00 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >at the start of a Journey to Scotland
> >> >informing James the IV of Scotland that Queen Elizabeth had just
died.
> >> >I know it's of no immediate concern to you, but did anyone turn up
> >> >do you know?
> >>
> >> I'm sure Dee was there.
>
>
>
> Dee outlived her.
...
Dimwit! I meant did anyone turn up for the 400th anniversary
in the middle of the night! Last March! Because I just
happened to be reading about her dying just prior to that.
Standing under that gateway exactly 400 years to the hour
afterwards, would appeal to a sense of historical imagination.
Which obviously you haven't got!
You are a philistine!
^^^
...
>
> >> >> No. It's not there. There was a bric-a-brac shop that had a few
books
> >> >> outside the window but nothing dedicated to books.
> >>
> >> >I'll have to get down there to take a look.
> >>
> >> No need. There's none there.
>
> >It would stil be nice to see what its changed into. Because I'm now
> >even having trouble picturing it my head. The bric a brac shop I can
> >picture quite easily.
>
> Tell us where it was precisely.
...
It was a few shops along from the bric a brac shop.
That's the most I can remember. It had floor to ceiling windows,
the door was set right back, and there were floor to ceiling windows
on either side as you went down the "6ft (?) passage" to the door.
Painted black. I've just looked it up in one of my old directories
Baldur Bookshop 44 Hill Rise.
...
>
>
> Ah gwan. If I lose I'll leave the tenner or twenty or whatever it is
> in a secret drop round Richmond somewhere.
>
> We'll have to be careful though. Wouldn't want Howard getting there
> first and nicking it.
...
Exactly. Anyway you're going to owe me a fiver at least for this
video. If the drop's in the middle of Richmond Park though that
should be o.k as Beale has no car and he's hardly likely to walk.
Although he could get the loan of a bike I suppose.
But how do I know you'll leave the money?
But then if you know the URL you can whois it, and I could
end up with you turning up at my house drunk asking for money
or anything.
No I don't think that's a very good idea somehow.
...
>
> >> >Anyway, what do you do for a living?
> >> >
> >> >Come on! Answer!
> >>
> >> You first.
>
> >But you've not even revealed you true name yet, have you?
>
> Don't change the subject. Answer the question!
>
...
No you first. What's your real surname. Doesn't start with
an "M" by any chance does it ? And not vaguly associated with
the tinkers?
michael adams
...
hmhawktoo
news:qv2frv08o177j3hmi...@4ax.com:
> hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote;
> Would you like to prove different ?
No I just wasn't sure if you thought they were terrorists. Just wanted to
clear it up. :-)
-Whitewolf(Ray)
You'd think he'd come out and clear up the ambiguity... I mean does he
believe the IRA are "terrorists" or not... Come ON Telmey, stop beating
around the bush and avoiding the question and answer it straight...
In your opinion are the IRA "terrorists" or not?
(I hate it when people try to hide their real opinion)
LOL! :-)
Ray(couldn't help myself)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to
have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Email: ray-AT-eirefirst.com
Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bertie the Bunyip
news:1aghrvs5630frfdkb...@4ax.com:
> Bertie the Bunyip <A...@a.aaaaaa> wrote;
>>Nik <ano...@one.bites.the.dust> wrote in
>>news:2cvfrvcr5h5pshkfv...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2003 14:08:07 GMT, hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't be stupid, the IRA ARE terrorists! always have been
>>>>> same goes for their Loyalists counterparts
>>>>>
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No honestly Tel. Do you think the IRA are terrorists?
>>>
>>> So let me get this straight, you, Telmey, think that the IRA are
>>> terrorists, in the present sense?
>>>
>>
>>Betcha Njikky doesn't care what you think anyway.
>>
>>He's going to think what njikky is going to think and fuck anyonewho
>>thinks different,
>>
>>Right njiky?
>
> IT is right.. 100% right , Sure he killfiled me because I spoke to you
> that's the Freedom he loves so much
>
> But you have to give him Credit where Credit is Due...
>
> He Ideals of a truth and even DemocraZy with Freedom of speech
> is a simple *STFU* where everyone gets their say
>
Pretty much it.
Reminds me of something in the past, can't put my finger on it though.
Bertie
Nik
Ok...I quite understand that people revisit those acts. I have
difficulty though, with people who continually revisit those acts but
at the same time refuse to also look at their own community's history.
Telmey has, to my knowledge, NEVER directly answered the question,
"When does Irish history become relevant and legitimately referable?"
I would prefer a situation where we could all move on from the past
but whilst people continue to bring up the misdeeds of the Republican
movement but refuse to look at the greater weight of a longer history
then it becomes difficult.
Nik
Nik
<r...@eirefirst.com> wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2003 20:15:40 GMT, hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>Telmey® (telmey®@ntlworld.moc) wrote in
>>news:qv2frv08o177j3hmi...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> hmhawktoo <NOS...@lycos.com> wrote;
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be stupid, the IRA ARE terrorists! always have been
>>>>> same goes for their Loyalists counterparts
>>>>>
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>> THEY are TERRORISTS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No honestly Tel. Do you think the IRA are terrorists?
>>>
>>> Would you like to prove different ?
>>
>>No I just wasn't sure if you thought they were terrorists. Just wanted to
>>clear it up. :-)
>
>You'd think he'd come out and clear up the ambiguity... I mean does he
>believe the IRA are "terrorists" or not... Come ON Telmey, stop beating
>around the bush and avoiding the question and answer it straight...
>
>In your opinion are the IRA "terrorists" or not?
>
>(I hate it when people try to hide their real opinion)
>
>LOL! :-)
>
>Ray(couldn't help myself)
<laughter>
Nik
michael adams
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:38:41 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >at the start of a Journey to Scotland
> >> >> >informing James the IV of Scotland that Queen Elizabeth had just
> >died.
> >> >> >I know it's of no immediate concern to you, but did anyone turn up
> >> >> >do you know?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sure Dee was there.
> >>
> >> >The John Dee Society you mean? Or Dee in ghostly form ?
> >>
> >> You're showing your ignorance again.
> >>
> >> Dee outlived her.
>
> >in the middle of the night! Last March!
>
>
> You've been caught!
>
> I'll give you one point for a nifty try to get out of it though.
>
> Ten points to me of course.
...
If I wasn't referring to the 400th anniversary of her death in 2003
then why did I make specific mention above to the John Dee Society?
Or are you seriously that the John Dee Society was in existence
in 1603?
Buffoon!
...
> >Painted black. I've just looked it up in one of my old directories
> >Baldur Bookshop 44 Hill Rise.
>
> Do you remember an old-fashioned tobaccanist just about there?
...
Did it have a sort of bow front jutting out onto the pavement? I may
be imagining it. And I can't remember any of the shops on the other side
of the road further up, just past that open green bit either. IIRR there
were are at least one or two. I used to go in that clothes shop further
back down quite a lot in the early 60's as well. That was a clothes shop
even then. As was the guitar shop. And go in the coffee bar.
But as I said can hardly even remember the bookshop.
...
>
> >> Ah gwan. If I lose I'll leave the tenner or twenty or whatever it is
> >> in a secret drop round Richmond somewhere.
> >>
> >> We'll have to be careful though. Wouldn't want Howard getting there
> >> first and nicking it.
>
> >Exactly. Anyway you're going to owe me a fiver at least for this
> >video. If the drop's in the middle of Richmond Park though that
> >should be o.k as Beale has no car and he's hardly likely to walk.
> >Although he could get the loan of a bike I suppose.
>
> You haven't a clue about tradecraft. You don't drive to the drop. You
> walk.
>
...
Don't be silly now. The point is that you can drive to one of
the Car Parks - the one at the top of the Hill on the far side
would probably be best - making sure your not being followed
on the road. Then park up and walk the couple of hundred yards
to the drop.
That's not a problem for you is it?
...
> Somewhere in Terrace gardens is a better bet.
>
...
Oh dear me no! Much too near the road. There are pedestrians and buses
passing within yeards of there. Right in the middle of the Park is
much better.
What's the problem?
...
> >But how do I know you'll leave the money?
> >
> >But then if you know the URL you can whois it, and I could
> >end up with you turning up at my house drunk asking for money
> >or anything.
> >
> >No I don't think that's a very good idea somehow.
>
> As I expected. It's that old bedsit in Hammersmith.
>
> You're embarrassed.
...
I would be, with you turning up at my front door in your Greasby's
lost property mac and carrying your charity shop carrier bags.
"Couldn't lend your old mate Conor the price of a drink now
could you ?" "Gwan now be a sport"
No wonder you were so keen on this meeting in the pub as well!
Yourself, Beale, and Muggins here!
...
>
> >> >> >Anyway, what do you do for a living?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Come on! Answer!
> >> >>
> >> >> You first.
> >>
> >> >But you've not even revealed you true name yet, have you?
> >>
> >> Don't change the subject. Answer the question!
>
> >No you first. What's your real surname.
...
O.K forget the tinkers.
Simply does it start with an "M" then?
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:19:59 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> >at the start of a Journey to Scotland
> >> >> >> >informing James the IV of Scotland that Queen Elizabeth had
just
> >> >died.
> >> >> >> >I know it's of no immediate concern to you, but did anyone turn
up
> >> >> >> >do you know?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm sure Dee was there.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The John Dee Society you mean? Or Dee in ghostly form ?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're showing your ignorance again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dee outlived her.
> >>
> >> >Dimwit! I meant did anyone turn up for the 400th anniversary
> >> >in the middle of the night! Last March!
> >>
> >> No you did not!
> >>
> >> You've been caught!
> >>
> >> I'll give you one point for a nifty try to get out of it though.
> >>
> >> Ten points to me of course.
>
> >then why did I make specific mention above to the John Dee Society?
>
...
How can that be possible?
stage 1 I descibed the journey to Scotland - in the context of the
400th anniversary being in March and I asked you
"did anyone turn up do you know? (You living in Richmond
or at least claiming to.)
stage 2 You said "I'm sure Dee was there"
stage 3 I said "The John Dee Society you mean? Or Dee in ghostly form ?"
Now at which stage are you claiming that "I was caught?"
...
>
> They're all boutiques about there now.
>
> > As was the guitar shop.
>
> Gone. There's one beside the review bookshop.
...
That's been there a long time as well. Next to the hardware shop.
Or maybe its the same one, having moved and I never noticed.
Maybe the one on Hill Rise shut around 1972. Oops.
...
>
> >> >Exactly. Anyway you're going to owe me a fiver at least for this
> >> >video. If the drop's in the middle of Richmond Park though that
> >> >should be o.k as Beale has no car and he's hardly likely to walk.
> >> >Although he could get the loan of a bike I suppose.
> >>
> >> You haven't a clue about tradecraft. You don't drive to the drop. You
> >> walk.
>
> >Don't be silly now. The point is that you can drive to one of
> >the Car Parks - the one at the top of the Hill on the far side
> >would probably be best
>
> Where's that car park?
...
Into the Park at the Star and Garter Gate. Turn right. There's a
first Car Park to your right next to White Lodge where Bertrand
Russell was born. All downhill this. You can really get up some
speed right to the turn before the Gate at the bottom. Sharp left
and up the hill gradual slope at first then swings round to the
left, then right and then left again. Along the top to the right
there's another car park. That one. There's another one further
on, on the outside as well.
...
>
> > - making sure your not being followed
> >on the road. Then park up and walk the couple of hundred yards
> >to the drop.
> >
> >That's not a problem for you is it?
>
> >> Somewhere in Terrace gardens is a better bet.
>
> >Oh dear me no! Much too near the road. There are pedestrians and buses
> >passing within yeards of there.
>
> Nah. You can't see into Terrace Gardens from the road and there are no
> buses. It's the perfect place in facr, well-shielded from the road.
>
> > Right in the middle of the Park is
> >much better.
>
> It's too open. Ayone can see you there and spy on you from a long
> distance away.
...
There's trees near that car-park. Thats the point! You have to hide
the thing inside a hollow tree or similar.(see below)
...
> >What's the problem?
>
> No problem. Just that Terrace gardens is better. It was the place that
> was always used for such meetings during the Cold War. Not St James's
> Park as they always pretend in the films.
...
Meetings? Who's talking about meetings? We're talking about dead
letter drops in hollow trees, or in cracks in gravestones - another
favourite.
...
>
> >> >But how do I know you'll leave the money?
> >> >
> >> >But then if you know the URL you can whois it, and I could
> >> >end up with you turning up at my house drunk asking for money
> >> >or anything.
> >> >
> >> >No I don't think that's a very good idea somehow.
> >>
> >> As I expected. It's that old bedsit in Hammersmith.
> >>
> >> You're embarrassed.
>
> >I would be, with you turning up at my front door in your Greasby's
> >lost property mac and carrying your charity shop carrier bags.
> >
> >"Couldn't lend your old mate Conor the price of a drink now
> >could you ?" "Gwan now be a sport"
> >
> >No wonder you were so keen on this meeting in the pub as well!
> >
> >Yourself, Beale, and Muggins here!
>
> So what area do you live in then?
>
...
Questions, questions. Why do you want to know?
You don't live in the house opposite by any chance do you?
...
> >> >No you first. What's your real surname.
> >...
> >
> >O.K forget the tinkers.
> >
> >Simply does it start with an "M" then?
>
> Might.
>
But there again it might not.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:47:55 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >If I wasn't referring to the 400th anniversary of her death in 2003
> >> >then why did I make specific mention above to the John Dee Society?
> >>
> >> You only did that after you were caught.
>
> >How can that be possible?
>
> Your unfamiliarity with the material perhaps.
....
Try reading your own Council's Website!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
start quote:
1590 saw the queen have 3 meeting with Dee in November/December.
Dee was granted wardenship of Manchester College in April 1595
and did not return to Mortlake until 1604.
:end quote
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/depts/opps/eal/leisure/libraries/history/notes/6
0.htm
If it doesn't wrap, tough!
He was miles away at the time. I knew it. You didn't. Caught again!
...
>
> >stage 1 I descibed the journey to Scotland - in the context of the
> > 400th anniversary being in March and I asked you
> > "did anyone turn up do you know? (You living in Richmond
> > or at least claiming to.)
> >
> >stage 2 You said "I'm sure Dee was there"
> >
> >stage 3 I said "The John Dee Society you mean? Or Dee in ghostly form ?"
> >
> >Now at which stage are you claiming that "I was caught?"
>
> At all stages.
...
Try reading your own Council's Website!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
start quote:
1590 saw the queen have 3 meeting with Dee in November/December.
Dee was granted wardenship of Manchester College in April 1595
and did not return to Mortlake until 1604.
:end quote
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/depts/opps/eal/leisure/libraries/history/notes/6
0.htm
If it doesn't wrap, tough!
He was miles away at the time. I knew it. You didn't. Caught again!
...
> >> They're all boutiques about there now.
> >>
> >> > As was the guitar shop.
> >>
> >> Gone. There's one beside the review bookshop.
>
> >That's been there a long time as well. Next to the hardware shop.
> >Or maybe its the same one, having moved and I never noticed.
> >Maybe the one on Hill Rise shut around 1972. Oops.
>
> What about the one with the Beatle pictures?
...
No I can't remeber specifically Beatles pictures. There could
have been a hairdressers in that same parade (as the review
bookshop)with photos in the window. But the Beatles? Other side
of that side road perhaps. Shop painted white......
Don't know.
...
> >>
> >> Where's that car park?
>
> >Into the Park at the Star and Garter Gate. Turn right. There's a
> >first Car Park to your right next to White Lodge where Bertrand
> >Russell was born. All downhill this. You can really get up some
> >speed right to the turn before the Gate at the bottom. Sharp left
> >and up the hill gradual slope at first then swings round to the
> >left, then right and then left again. Along the top to the right
> >there's another car park. That one. There's another one further
> >on, on the outside as well.
...
No comment I notice. A bit far to walk eh?
...
> >>
> >> Nah. You can't see into Terrace Gardens from the road and there are no
> >> buses.
> >>
...
65's are going up and down Petersham Road all the time.
What are you talking about?
^^^
Years ago when Red Ken was running the GLC that used to be one of the
best value bus rides in London. All the way to Chessington Zoo for a
pittance, whatever it was.
...
> >> No problem. Just that Terrace gardens is better. It was the place that
> >> was always used for such meetings during the Cold War. Not St James's
> >> Park as they always pretend in the films.
>
> >Meetings? Who's talking about meetings? We're talking about dead
> >letter drops in hollow trees, or in cracks in gravestones - another
> >favourite.
>
> Both. And it's secluded.
...
FFS! Why the f*ck would I want to hold meetings with you in
secluded spots?
The only point of a dead letter drop is that somebody doesn't
stumble across it by accident, or see the drop being made.
But you could see that from the top deck of a 65 bus.
...
> >>
> >> So what area do you live in then?
>
> >Questions, questions. Why do you want to know?
>
> Just interested.
>
> General area will do.
>
> I might know it.
...
West London.
You've had enough clues.
...
>
> >You don't live in the house opposite by any chance do you?
>
> Opposite where?
...
Opposite here of course.
...
>
> >> >> >No you first. What's your real surname.
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >O.K forget the tinkers.
> >> >
> >> >Simply does it start with an "M" then?
> >>
> >> Might.
>
> >But there again it might not.
>
> Maybe.
>
>
...
You're not going to say. Are you?
michael adams
...
michael adams
> >> What about the one with the Beatle pictures?
>
> >No I can't remeber specifically Beatles pictures. There could
> >have been a hairdressers in that same parade (as the review
> >bookshop)with photos in the window. But the Beatles? Other side
> >of that side road perhaps. Shop painted white......
> >Don't know.
>
> Nah. I'm talking about the Hill.
...
So where were they? In a hairdressers ? Where ?
Blow up photos or what? And when ?
...
>
> >65's are going up and down Petersham Road all the time.
> >
> >What are you talking about?
>
> You can't see into the Terrace Gardens because of all the trees.
>
> >Years ago when Red Ken was running the GLC that used to be one of the
> >best value bus rides in London. All the way to Chessington Zoo for a
> >pittance, whatever it was.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> It was the 71.
>
> Different route.
>
> And it lasted well into 1990's
>
> You haven't a clue.
...
You think I can't read the number on the front of a bus?
Route 65: 1968 - 1982
EALING Argyle Road (Monday-Friday peaks) - EALING BROADWAY
- South Ealing, Kew Bridge, Richmond, Petersham, Ham, Kingston,
Surbiton, Hook, Copt Gilders Estate, CHESSINGTON ZOO
1968 Service between Chessington & Leatherhead replaced by revised 71.
http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/065.htm
Even got pictures for you.
...
> >> >> No problem. Just that Terrace gardens is better. It was the place
that
> >> >> was always used for such meetings during the Cold War. Not St
James's
> >> >> Park as they always pretend in the films.
> >>
> >> >Meetings? Who's talking about meetings? We're talking about dead
> >> >letter drops in hollow trees, or in cracks in gravestones - another
> >> >favourite.
> >>
> >> Both. And it's secluded.
>
> >FFS! Why the f*ck would I want to hold meetings with you in
> >secluded spots?
> >
> >The only point of a dead letter drop is that somebody doesn't
> >stumble across it by accident, or see the drop being made.
> >But you could see that from the top deck of a 65 bus.
>
> Noop.
>
> Everyone's looking at the river anyway.
>
...
Not when they're sitting on the near side of the bus going in the
direction of Kingston they're not! They look out of the window
nearest them! To their left! Some master spy you'd make!
...
>
> >> >> So what area do you live in then?
> >>
> >> >Questions, questions. Why do you want to know?
> >>
> >> Just interested.
> >>
> >> General area will do.
> >>
> >> I might know it.
>
> >West London.
>
> What part?
>
> Osterley?
>
...
Might be
...
> >> >> Might.
> >>
> >> >But there again it might not.
> >>
> >> Maybe.
>
> >You're not going to say. Are you?
>
> Methinks.
>
...
Thou doth, doth thou ?
Very Good Office tonite if the listings are correct.
It's the Assessments.
Keith's assessment is one of the high spots of the
series for me.
michael adams
...
SammyM
I leave you for a week or so, to go up north (that's the north of the
north!) and come back to find you still arguing about buildings (well at
least this time they're in London, not Belfast) and that's between you
writing "war and peace" on Rigged Elections!
What have I missed? : )
SammyM
SammyM
> Well, it's either that or pillow talk.
>
You cover a lot of ground! : )
SammyM
SammyM
> Aye. It's good fun turning up the nordie volume now and again.
>
> The neighbours just go spare
>
> Conor
I've noticed!!
SammyM
KateH
> "Conor Booze O Brien"
> > Well, it's either that or pillow talk.
>
> You cover a lot of ground! : )
He can be a bit forward, that one.........
KateH :)
michael adams
>
> It's a clothes shop.
...
It's still there then
...
.
>
> So both 71 and 65 went to Chessington.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I suppose it just depends on how old you are, what you remember.
>
...
I mentioned it in the context of Red Ken and the GLC if you remeber.
So when was that?
...
> So, do you live in Ealing then?
...
Just because it said Ealing on the front of the bus doesn't
necessarily mean I live there. Boarding the 65 at Brentford
or Kew Bridge still made the journey to Chessington Zoo for
20p(?) great value compared with before. Red Ken set a
maximum bus and tube fare if you remember. Or maybe you don't.
...
> They wouldn't see very much. There's good cover.
...
You seem to be very familiar with all this.
...
> >> >> >> So what area do you live in then?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Questions, questions. Why do you want to know?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just interested.
> >> >>
> >> >> General area will do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I might know it.
> >>
> >> >West London.
> >>
> >> What part?
> >>
> >> Osterley?
>
> >Might be
>
> I'm pretty sure it's out that way, Ealking and beyond.....
>
...
So all those silly ideas about my living in a bedsit in
Hammersmith have finally been abandoned then?
...
> >
> >Very Good Office tonite if the listings are correct.
> There is something strange about actors playing ordinary people. It
> reminds you that it's not what they're doing the rest of the time.
>
...
But they *are* being ordinary people the rest of the time.
You can even imagine actors temping in such an environment
between acting jobs.
Gareths's hair last night was just a bit *too bad*. You can't imagine
anyone having his hair cut quite that badly. What with the makeup
bags under the eyes you can imagine them being in stitches
in makeup. And during his little homilies to camera. Corpsing.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:50:27 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> It's a clothes shop.
>
> >It's still there then
>
> Yup.
>
> >> So both 71 and 65 went to Chessington.
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> I suppose it just depends on how old you are, what you remember.
>
> >I mentioned it in the context of Red Ken and the GLC if you remeber.
> >So when was that?
>
> 70's/80's.
>
> But you were also shopping for clothes in the 1960's
>
> You're an ancient old hippy..
...
No I was buying imported American shirts and wrangler cord jeans
from that shop. IIRR hipies didn't wear american shiets or wrangler
cord jeans. There was another shop in Charing Cross Rd used to sell
similar stuff. That stuff was cool at one time. Never got into
the Toniks myself.
...
>
> >> So, do you live in Ealing then?
>
> >Just because it said Ealing on the front of the bus doesn't
> >necessarily mean I live there. Boarding the 65 at Brentford
> >or Kew Bridge still made the journey to Chessington Zoo for
> >20p(?) great value compared with before.
>
> Yes, but we've alreadt established that you don't know Brentford and
> Kew very well.
...
Sorry?
And where exactly does Anna Ford live agin?
Oh dear!
...
>
> You must be from one of those crappy new schemes out in the middle of
> nowhere.
...
If I'm an ancient hippy, it can't be that "new" can it?
And what's this obsession with sink housing estates.
And anyway I've already mentioned the trees in my garden. The oik next
door only suggested I cut one of them down because the leaves were
blowing in his garden. They've been making similar "remarks" since
they moved in a few years ago. Because being right thickos they bought
the house in winter when there were no leaves on the trees. So they
never thought. Bufoons. He's now bought one of these leaf blowers
as well! The real joke is the wife's such a dragon he spends as
much time mowing the lawn as possible - I think he was acting under
instructions, the poor sod.
....
>
> >So all those silly ideas about my living in a bedsit in
> >Hammersmith have finally been abandoned then?
>
> Noop.
>
> You can go straight up from Hammersmith to Ealing, very easily.
>
...
But why would I need to go to Ealing ?
...
> >> >Very Good Office tonite if the listings are correct.
> >
> >> There is something strange about actors playing ordinary people. It
> >> reminds you that it's not what they're doing the rest of the time.
>
> >But they *are* being ordinary people the rest of the time.
>
> They're not.
>
> There's a very big difference between the way these Office characters
> were played and the way Eastenders or indeed any other characters are
> played.
...
Its not the way the characters are played, its the material and the
verite way the thing is filmed.
Eastenders is a melodrama with plots and sub plots. Things like the
Office have no plots - except whether the place closes and the series
ends or not and so the characters aren't developed in that way. You
only see them at work or the night club or the pub, wheras in Eastenders
you're supposed to know all about them. In the Ofice they're life outside
is only hinted at which is exactly how it often is in real life.
...
>
> >You can even imagine actors temping in such an environment
> >between acting jobs.
>
> I'm not talking about their own personal lives. I'm talking about
> their acting roles.
>
> Anyway, I see theres's going to be a nuclear war in 2006.
>
> Looks like Heading isn't going to achieve his dream of outliving me.
>
>
...
This is one of your better contributions of late.
Nevertheless. The woeful subject matter of Horizon of late, has been the
subject of debate on the TV group, and in the time you sat watching
this tosh you could have read a good few pages of something worthwhile.
And then tuned in to Harry Hill's TV Burp at 10.
You've no class at all.
So you haven't.
As Nik would say.
michael adams
...
michael adams
>
> Hippies always wore cords.
>
> You were a hippy. And Richmond was full of hippies at the time.
...
This was before hippies. That's why the wrangler cords were such
a thing. At that time you couldn't just buy them any old where.
...
>
> > There was another shop in Charing Cross Rd used to sell
> >similar stuff. That stuff was cool at one time. Never got into
> >the Toniks myself.
...
Missed the Tonik ref as well I notice.
But then as you were in short trousers at the time, I suppose
that's not surprising.
...
> >>
> >> Yes, but we've alreadt established that you don't know Brentford and
> >> Kew very well.
>
> >Sorry?
> >
> >And where exactly does Anna Ford live agin?
> >
> >Oh dear!
>
> >> You must be from one of those crappy new schemes out in the middle of
> >> nowhere.
>
> >If I'm an ancient hippy, it can't be that "new" can it?
> >
> >And what's this obsession with sink housing estates.
> >
> >And anyway I've already mentioned the trees in my garden. The oik next
> >door only suggested I cut one of them down because the leaves were
> >blowing in his garden. They've been making similar "remarks" since
> >they moved in a few years ago. Because being right thickos they bought
> >the house in winter when there were no leaves on the trees. So they
> >never thought. Bufoons. He's now bought one of these leaf blowers
> >as well! The real joke is the wife's such a dragon he spends as
> >much time mowing the lawn as possible - I think he was acting under
> >instructions, the poor sod.
>
> Far too much detail to be anything other than total fiction.
...
And ten times better than anything you ever come up with.
...
>
> >> >So all those silly ideas about my living in a bedsit in
> >> >Hammersmith have finally been abandoned then?
> >>
> >> Noop.
> >>
> >> You can go straight up from Hammersmith to Ealing, very easily.
>
> >But why would I need to go to Ealing ?
>
> To get the bus to the Zoo.
...
I could have caught a 65 to the Zoo anywhere betwen Ealing and Copt
Gilders. Why would I have to have gone right to the end of the
route? It wasn't an Express Bus. There were plenty of stops.
...
>
> >> >> >Very Good Office tonite if the listings are correct.
> >> >
> >> >> There is something strange about actors playing ordinary people. It
> >> >> reminds you that it's not what they're doing the rest of the time.
> >>
> >> >But they *are* being ordinary people the rest of the time.
> >>
> >> They're not.
> >>
> >> There's a very big difference between the way these Office characters
> >> were played and the way Eastenders or indeed any other characters are
> >> played.
>
> >Its not the way the characters are played, its the material and the
> >verite way the thing is filmed.
>
> It's the acting too. The acting is central here.
>
> >Eastenders is a melodrama with plots and sub plots. Things like the
> >Office have no plots - except whether the place closes and the series
> >ends or not and so the characters aren't developed in that way. You
> >only see them at work or the night club or the pub, wheras in Eastenders
> >you're supposed to know all about them. In the Ofice they're life
outside
> >is only hinted at which is exactly how it often is in real life.
>
> But think about the acting itself.
>
> Most acting isn't like this at all.
...
What's different about it?
...
> >>
> >> Anyway, I see theres's going to be a nuclear war in 2006.
> >>
> >> Looks like Heading isn't going to achieve his dream of outliving me.
> >And then tuned in to Harry Hill's TV Burp at 10.
>
> Can't stand him.
>
> Never could.
...
Whats wrong with him? Actually having TV to talk about
helps him to structure his shows more.
...
>
> >You've no class at all.
> >
> >So you haven't.
> >
> >As Nik would say.
>
> Speaks the language like a native, so he does, yerman aye.
...
Indeed, indeed.
He does so.
So he does.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:30 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> Hippies always wore cords.
> >>
> >> You were a hippy. And Richmond was full of hippies at the time.
>
>
> I see.
>
> So you're a pre-Haight Ashbury pro Hippy.
>
> Doesn't get you off the hook of silliness though does it.
...
Madras Jackets. Ever heard of those? And then seersucker.
Do you know what I forgot all about the Madras Jackets.
Always a plain shirt with the madras jackets as
well. Narrow knitted ties.
You're the one who's making a fool of himself here not me.
What makes you think I'm pro hippy? I'm nothing like Neil
from the Young Ones. Never have been.
You're from the 70's anyway. Platform soles, bushy sideburns
velvet shirts with enormous collars.
You've got nothing to boast about.
"In the Summertime when the weather is high "
Hippies were in favour of wishy washy things. Art Noveuay curls
etc. I always took my cue from modernism in design matters anyway.
Good clean lines. White space. Hard edges.
Tekton. Le Corbusier. Form fol.....
You haven't got a clue.
...
> >That's why the wrangler cords were such
> >a thing. At that time you couldn't just buy them any old where.
>
> >> > There was another shop in Charing Cross Rd used to sell
> >> >similar stuff. That stuff was cool at one time. Never got into
> >> >the Toniks myself.
>
> >Missed the Tonik ref as well I notice.
> >
> >But then as you were in short trousers at the time, I suppose
> >that's not surprising.
>
> Yeah but. I'll live longer than you, won't I.
...
Not necessarily. You've already shown an unhealthy interest
in fad diets. Then there's your alcohol problem and general lack
of exercise. And we haven't even established whether you've
given up smoking yet have we?
...
>
> There's always that to look forward to.
>
> Hoot!
>
> The way that youth tempt fate is just toooo frightening.
>
...
The days of your youth are long gone.
...
> >>
> >> Far too much detail to be anything other than total fiction.
>
> >And ten times better than anything you ever come up with.
>
> I don't need fiction.
>
> You just couldn't make my life up.
>
...
You've tried often enough. And you've been caught out!
Repeatedly
...
>
> >I could have caught a 65 to the Zoo anywhere betwen Ealing and Copt
> >Gilders. Why would I have to have gone right to the end of the
> >route? It wasn't an Express Bus. There were plenty of stops.
>
> OK, so between Ealing and Richmond then?
...
That's where I would have boarded the bus. Yes.
...
> >>
> >> But think about the acting itself.
> >>
> >> Most acting isn't like this at all.
>
> >What's different about it?
>
> Don't you know?
>
...
Apart from the fact that they can improvise. No I don't.
You tell me.
...
> >Whats wrong with him? Actually having TV to talk about
> >helps him to structure his shows more.
>
> I just never got into him. There were so may others, and he's still
> doing the same thing.
...
I partially agree with that. The first two or three times I watched
him I myself, did think he was really quite funny. However I taped two
series and they don't stand re-watching at all. Very formulaic
and repetitive. And based on a limited range of catchphrases
- "whats the chances of that happening eh?" "What about the badgers"
Etc. However in TV Burp he comments on clips from Holby City etc which
I don't watch myself and other material. But I suppose a lot of people
could find his incessant zaniness a bit wearing. After the first two
seconds or so. He's an ex medic of course.
...
>
> >> >You've no class at all.
> >> >
> >> >So you haven't.
> >> >
> >> >As Nik would say.
> >>
> >> Speaks the language like a native, so he does, yerman aye.
>
> >Indeed, indeed.
> >
> >He does so.
> >
> >So he does.
>
>
> Aye.
>
>
*Ah yes indeed.
michael adams
...
This is taking on the appearance of an almost verbatim transcript
of many an observed conversation. The only thing lacking being
topical queries regarding the finishing of the silage etc.
So have you?
michael adams
> >> Yeah but. I'll live longer than you, won't I.
>
> >Not necessarily. You've already shown an unhealthy interest
> >in fad diets. Then there's your alcohol problem and general lack
> >of exercise. And we haven't even established whether you've
> >given up smoking yet have we?
>
> I'm surprised I've lived this long.
>
> Where is Heading anyway?
>
> I wonder are the Alliance Party keeping him under wraps,
> like the DUP and Paisley, in case he fucks it for them.
...
No he's out stuffing leaflets in letter boxes.
He'll be accompanying the OAP's and the mentally feeble to the
Poling Stations on Wednesday.
His being on here, boasting about all these high powered Operating
Systems is all a big propoganda stunt as well.
In fact they only have a Commodore 64.
Heading plays games most of the time.
They keep all their membership details on two cassettes.
Well it's one actually. The other one is the Backup.
....
> >> >I could have caught a 65 to the Zoo anywhere betwen Ealing and Copt
> >> >Gilders. Why would I have to have gone right to the end of the
> >> >route? It wasn't an Express Bus. There were plenty of stops.
> >>
> >> OK, so between Ealing and Richmond then?
>
> >That's where I would have boarded the bus. Yes.
>
> Where?
...
Where what?
...
>
> >> >> But think about the acting itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most acting isn't like this at all.
> >>
> >> >What's different about it?
> >>
> >> Don't you know?
>
> >Apart from the fact that they can improvise. No I don't.
>
> Think of the differences between the acting performances in The Office
> and Eastenders.
>
> Why do those differences exist?
...
I don't know. Why don't you explain?
Otherwise people might think you're making it up.
...
>
> Same as yer man outa The Goodies. I couldn't stand that either.
...
The Goodies was "too young" for me. Graham Garden has been on some
radio shows though. He's got quite a sharp sense of humour, but he
doesn't seem to appear very much for some reason.
...
>
> I think it's the zaniness puts me off. I never much liked Mayall and
> Edmondson particularly when they were on their own.
>
> I liked Mayall in the Young Ones though, and when he did Kevin Turvey.
...
I thought Bottom was great. But there you go. Just the way they
caught the essential seediness of living in a flat over a shop
in Clapham.(They watched cricket from the roof in one episode.)
...
>
> >> >> >You've no class at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So you haven't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As Nik would say.
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaks the language like a native, so he does, yerman aye.
> >>
> >> >Indeed, indeed.
> >> >
> >> >He does so.
> >> >
> >> >So he does.
> >>
> >>
> >> Aye.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >*Ah yes indeed.
>
> >michael adams
> >
> >This is taking on the appearance of an almost verbatim transcript
> >of many an observed conversation. The only thing lacking being
> >topical queries regarding the finishing of the silage etc.
> >
> >So have you?
>
> Not the year.
>
>
Ah well yes.
[nods, looks at floor]
michael adams
Ingrams this week
"This is no longer a single-source Andrew Gilligan type of story.
We have two witnesses, the former US President and Her Majesty
the Queen, both saying Blair admitted to a history of heart problems.
Who do we believe? These two highly-placed informants or Mr Blair,
the man who maintained 'emphatically' that he had nothing to do
with the naming of Dr Kelly?"
...
michael adams
[APNI]
>
> The BBC doesn't even bother giving them much airtime anymore.
>
> They used to get so much more in the past.
...
Well it's based on their vote, by law, I think.
You can't bluff that.
...
>
> >> >> >I could have caught a 65 to the Zoo anywhere betwen Ealing and
Copt
> >> >> >Gilders. Why would I have to have gone right to the end of the
> >> >> >route? It wasn't an Express Bus. There were plenty of stops.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, so between Ealing and Richmond then?
> >>
> >> >That's where I would have boarded the bus. Yes.
> >>
> >> Where?
>
> >Where what?
>
> Where did you board the bus?
...
As I said somewhere between Ealing and Richmond.
Before you get any more information -
Does your second name start with an "M"?
Come on. Yes or no?
...
>
> >> >> >> But think about the acting itself.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Most acting isn't like this at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> >What's different about it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you know?
> >>
> >> >Apart from the fact that they can improvise. No I don't.
> >>
> >> Think of the differences between the acting performances in The Office
> >> and Eastenders.
> >>
> >> Why do those differences exist?
>
> >I don't know. Why don't you explain?
>
> Are you saying that you don't see any difference between the acting in
> The Office and Eastenders?
...
No I don't. No.
Satisfied?
So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
...
>
> >Otherwise people might think you're making it up.
> >
> >> Same as yer man outa The Goodies. I couldn't stand that either.
> >
> >The Goodies was "too young" for me. Graham Garden has been on some
> >radio shows though. He's got quite a sharp sense of humour, but he
> >doesn't seem to appear very much for some reason.
>
> He mostly does those panel game type things.
...
I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue.
...
> >
> >Ingrams this week
> >
> >"This is no longer a single-source Andrew Gilligan type of story.
> >We have two witnesses, the former US President and Her Majesty
> >the Queen, both saying Blair admitted to a history of heart problems.
> >Who do we believe? These two highly-placed informants or Mr Blair,
> >the man who maintained 'emphatically' that he had nothing to do
> >with the naming of Dr Kelly?"
>
> Saw that. It's interesting.
>
> Might explain his search for a place in history.
>
>
...
What? His propensity for lying ? And badly at that.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:18:17 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >[APNI]
>
> I talking more generally.
>
> They used to be on the TV all the time. Now you hardly ever see them.
...
I see.
...
> >>
> >> Where did you board the bus?
>
> >As I said somewhere between Ealing and Richmond.
> >
> >Before you get any more information -
>
> Where?
>
> >Does your second name start with an "M"?
> >
> >Come on. Yes or no?
>
> What does it matter?
...
No more than where exactly I got on the bus, I'd imagine.
.....................
> >> >> Think of the differences between the acting performances in The
Office
> >> >> and Eastenders.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do those differences exist?
> >>
> >> >I don't know. Why don't you explain?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that you don't see any difference between the acting in
> >> The Office and Eastenders?
>
> >No I don't. No.
> >
> >Satisfied?
>
> Not really.
>
> You're not very observant.
>
> >So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
>
> No point if you don't even notice the difference yourself.
...
You made it all up in other words.
<yawn>
....................................
>
> >> >Otherwise people might think you're making it up.
> >> >
> >> >> Same as yer man outa The Goodies. I couldn't stand that either.
> >> >
> >> >The Goodies was "too young" for me. Graham Garden has been on some
> >> >radio shows though. He's got quite a sharp sense of humour, but he
> >> >doesn't seem to appear very much for some reason.
> >>
> >> He mostly does those panel game type things.
> >
> >I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue.
>
> Mornington Crescent.
...
It was on just now.
My favourite has always beeen the Late Arrivals
..................................
> >>
> >> Might explain his search for a place in history.
>
> >What? His propensity for lying ? And badly at that.
>
> Seems to get away with it though.
>
> People are openly calling him a liar now in Newspapers and TV.
>
> I don't remember seeing that before.
>
...
There was the piece in the New Statesman a while back -
in the subscription only part - seriously suggesting he
was off his head.
michael adams
...
Bruce Mustell
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:09:23 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> You're not very observant.
> >>
> >> >So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
> >>
> >> No point if you don't even notice the difference yourself.
>
> >You made it all up in other words.
>
> I didn't make it up.
>
> If you haven't noticed a difference then there's nothing more to say
> about it.
...
Here we go again.
Arguing like big girl's blouse.
You ask me if I could see any big difference in the acting between
the Office and Eastenders.
Apart from the obvious differences in format I admit I can't.
However rather than explain the differences - if there are any which
I very much doubt anyway - you flounce off in a huff and refuse to
explain what you mean.
Girlie.
...
>
> But I was thinking that we haven't seen so many public attacks on a PM
> in the post-war era.
>
> We know where hat NS attack comes from but the attacks are now coming
> from people who have no direct interest.
>
...
And the trouble is he has no real opposition, either outside
the Party or within it.
michael adams
...
michael adams
>
>
> >> >> You're not very observant.
> >> >>
> >> >> >So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
> >> >>
> >> >> No point if you don't even notice the difference yourself.
> >>
> >> >You made it all up in other words.
> >>
> >> I didn't make it up.
> >>
> >> If you haven't noticed a difference then there's nothing more to say
> >> about it.
>
> >Here we go again.
> >
> >Arguing like big girl's blouse.
> >
> >You ask me if I could see any big difference in the acting between
> >the Office and Eastenders.
> >
> >Apart from the obvious differences in format I admit I can't.
> >
> >However rather than explain the differences - if there are any which
> >I very much doubt anyway - you flounce off in a huff and refuse to
> >explain what you mean.
>
> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative than
> those in The Office, aren't they.
...
Yes! And I already made the point that Eastenders is a melodrams!
Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
...
>
> >> But I was thinking that we haven't seen so many public attacks on a PM
> >> in the post-war era.
> >>
> >> We know where hat NS attack comes from but the attacks are now coming
> >> from people who have no direct interest.
>
> >And the trouble is he has no real opposition, either outside
> >the Party or within it.
>
> Aye
>
...
Indeed
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:24:24 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> You're not very observant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No point if you don't even notice the difference yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You made it all up in other words.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't make it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you haven't noticed a difference then there's nothing more to
say
> >> >> about it.
> >>
> >> >Here we go again.
> >> >
> >> >Arguing like big girl's blouse.
> >> >
> >> >You ask me if I could see any big difference in the acting between
> >> >the Office and Eastenders.
> >> >
> >> >Apart from the obvious differences in format I admit I can't.
> >> >
> >> >However rather than explain the differences - if there are any which
> >> >I very much doubt anyway - you flounce off in a huff and refuse to
> >> >explain what you mean.
> >>
> >> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative than
> >> those in The Office, aren't they.
>
> >
> >Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
>
>
> Dear, oh dear, oh dear.....
>
>
> Conor
>
>
>
michael adams
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:24:24 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> You're not very observant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >So why don't you explain it all to me, eh? Stanislavsy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No point if you don't even notice the difference yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You made it all up in other words.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't make it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you haven't noticed a difference then there's nothing more to
say
> >> >> about it.
> >>
> >> >Here we go again.
> >> >
> >> >Arguing like big girl's blouse.
> >> >
> >> >You ask me if I could see any big difference in the acting between
> >> >the Office and Eastenders.
> >> >
> >> >Apart from the obvious differences in format I admit I can't.
> >> >
> >> >However rather than explain the differences - if there are any which
> >> >I very much doubt anyway - you flounce off in a huff and refuse to
> >> >explain what you mean.
> >>
> >> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative than
> >> those in The Office, aren't they.
>
> >
> >Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
>
>
But only because the format is different.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> >> >> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative
than
> >> >> those in The Office, aren't they.
> >>
> >> >Yes! And I already made the point that Eastenders is a melodrams!
> >> >
> >> >Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
> >>
> >> So the style of acting is different then.
>
> >But only because the format is different.
>
> But the point is that these actors are acting much more like real
> people do.
>
> Most acting isn't like that.
>
>
...
What about film acting then ?
Especially close-up scenes?
michael adams
...
michael adams
> >
> >> >> >> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative
> >than
> >> >> >> those in The Office, aren't they.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Yes! And I already made the point that Eastenders is a melodrams!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
> >> >>
> >> >> So the style of acting is different then.
> >>
> >> >But only because the format is different.
> >>
> >> But the point is that these actors are acting much more like real
> >> people do.
> >>
> >> Most acting isn't like that.
>
> >What about film acting then ?
> >
> >Especially close-up scenes?
>
> What about them?
...
The actors often aren't very demonstrative in close-up dialogue
scenes are they ?
Which is the distinction you were seeking to draw. Between the Office
not demonstrative, and Eastenders very demonstrative.
michael adams
...
btw tonight's "Office" is especially cringeworthy.
Possibly the worst of both series.
...
michael adams
>
> >> >> >> >> Well, the characters in Eastenders are a lot more
demonstrative
> >> >than
> >> >> >> >> those in The Office, aren't they.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Yes! And I already made the point that Eastenders is a
melodrams!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Unlike the Office which is feaux documentary.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So the style of acting is different then.
> >> >>
> >> >> >But only because the format is different.
> >> >>
> >> >> But the point is that these actors are acting much more like real
> >> >> people do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most acting isn't like that.
> >>
> >> >What about film acting then ?
> >> >
> >> >Especially close-up scenes?
> >>
> >> What about them?
>
> >The actors often aren't very demonstrative in close-up dialogue
> >scenes are they ?
>
> Of course they are. They're at their most demonstrative.
>
> Emoting in close-up is one of the things that they think separtates
> the great from the mediocre.
>
> They're all into it in a big way.
>
> But anyway, you still haven't explained why they're so undemonstrative
> in The Office.
...
But Brent isn't always undemonstrative, is he ?
michael adams
btw I got the episodes confused. Next week, when he actually gives the
motivational talk, is the really toe curling one. I'm off.
michael adams
> It goes much deeper than that.
...
It doesn't go deeper at all!
Why are you all of a sudden changing the subject?
You harangued me, in post after post, to explain one obvious
(to you at least) difference in the acting in "The Office" and
"Eastenders".
When I was apparently unable to comply, you yourself suggested
that one obvious difference was that
"the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative
than those in The Office, aren't they."
However as soon as I object that David Brent the Central character
in "The Office" is hardly undemonstrative in any sense - in fact
precisely the opposite - you now claim that
"It goes much deeper than that."
Well I've got news for you sunshine.
It doesn't!
It doesn't go any deeper at all!
You've been caught yet again!
...
>
> What you're looking at in The Office is Naturalism. What you're
> looking at in Eastenders is Realism.
>
> The differences are quite important.
...
Yes they certainly are, when you've been caught out!
And are desperately trying to cover your tracks with another
load of old shite.
So come on! Just answer the question!
Is David Brent in "The Office" demonstrative ?
Yes or no?
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:49:12 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> But anyway, you still haven't explained why they're so
undemonstrative
> >> >> in The Office.
> >> >
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >But Brent isn't always undemonstrative, is he ?
> >>
> >> It goes much deeper than that.
>
>
>
> It goes to the very heart of the difference between Naturalism and
> Realism.
>
> >Why are you all of a sudden changing the subject?
>
>
> >You harangued me, in post after post, to explain one obvious
> >(to you at least) difference in the acting in "The Office" and
> >"Eastenders".
> >
> >When I was apparently unable to comply, you yourself suggested
> >that one obvious difference was that
> >
> >"the characters in Eastenders are a lot more demonstrative
> > than those in The Office, aren't they."
> >
> >However as soon as I object that David Brent the Central character
> >in "The Office" is hardly undemonstrative in any sense - in fact
> >precisely the opposite - you now claim that
> >
> >"It goes much deeper than that."
> >
> >Well I've got news for you sunshine.
> >
> >It doesn't!
>
>
> I mentioned the "demonstrative" as an intro to a much more interesting
> discussion.
>
> Most of the characters in The Office aren't demonstrative in the way
> that characters are portrayed in most other dramas, comedies etc.
>
> So, the question remains, what is the difference.
>
> I suggested that The Office characters weren't very demonstrative.
>
> And they aren't.
>
> You seem to think that because occasionally David Brent becomes a bit
> demonstartive that that undermines the point.
>
> It doesn't.
...
Yes it does. What about his mate Chris Finch ? He's even more
demonstrative than David Brent!
He's demonstrative all the time! And he's a damned sight more
demonstrative than say Dot Cotton in Eastenders ever is, or
Reg Hollis in the Bill.
Basically you haven't got a clue what you're talking about,
have you?
I also notice that you've dropped all the realism\naturalism stuff
like a ton of hot bricks, after being caught out by budgie there.
...
>
> It's still the case that the characters in The Office are far from
> demonstrative when compared with characters in most other dramas and
> comedies.
>
> That's the point.
>
...
Not is isn't. Because they're not. Not always.
...
> So it really isn't reducible to the silly yes/no question that I've
> had to snip.
>
> Is it?
>
...
Oh yes it is !
So that now, in addition to David Brent,
Is Chris Finch in "The Office" even more demonstrative than Brent ?
Yes or no?
Come on answer !
michael adams
...
michael adams
> >Yes it does. What about his mate Chris Finch ? He's even more
> >demonstrative than David Brent!
>
> >He's demonstrative all the time! And he's a damned sight more
> >demonstrative than say Dot Cotton in Eastenders ever is, or
> >Reg Hollis in the Bill.
>
> OK, so you're saying then are you that The Office characters are just
> every bit as demonstrative as the characters in Eastenders.
>
> Are you?
...
No.
Obviously not.
But what I am saying, is that some of the characters in The Office
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
are a lot more demonstrative than some of the characters in Eastenders
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Sufficiently so at least, so as to invalidate any suggestion of
"demonstrativeness" as being an essential distinguishing characteristic
between the two genres.
As evidenced by the Welsh birthday woman in this Wednesday's episode,
who again was very far from being undemonstrative.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:46:08 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >He's demonstrative all the time! And he's a damned sight more
> >> >demonstrative than say Dot Cotton in Eastenders ever is, or
> >> >Reg Hollis in the Bill.
> >>
> >> OK, so you're saying then are you that The Office characters are just
> >> every bit as demonstrative as the characters in Eastenders.
> >>
> >> Are you?
>
> >Obviously not.
>
> OK then. So you are agreeing with me that there is in fact a
> difference between the characters in Eastenders and The Office in
> terms of their demonstrativeness.
>
> That's all I wanted you to agree with in the first instance.
>
> Pity then that you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this
> point.
>
> >But what I am saying, is that some of the characters in The Office
> > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> >are a lot more demonstrative than some of the characters in Eastenders
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> >Sufficiently so at least, so as to invalidate any suggestion of
> >"demonstrativeness" as being an essential distinguishing characteristic
> >between the two genres.
> >
> >As evidenced by the Welsh birthday woman in this Wednesday's episode,
> >who again was very far from being undemonstrative.
>
> in either series and champion that as making their argument.
>
> I'm sure you'll agree with me though that what we really need to
> consider here is the median level of demonstrativeness.
>
> Could you address that issue please.
>
...
Are you referring solely to Eastenders here ?
...
>
> By the way, just heard Seamus Close of the Alliance Party on the radio
> squealing about the "hoops" through which voters had struggle in order
> to register and vote. Thankfully someone in Alliance has more of a
> clue than their SCI Rep, Mr Header.
>
> Amusing too that the Unionist "family", in going for the DUP, managed
> at a stroke to wipe out every strategic negotiating advantage they
> had. Steven King, one of the authors of the UUP policy that lead to
> this situation, wasn't too pleased, though it will paradoxically
> benefit NI as a whole.
>
> King's got one of those PhD thingies too.
>
> Hoot!
>
...
I don't know about King I simply can't make head nor tail of
what Trimble's strategy in all this was supposed to be.
The final irony in all this will finally be played out when its
established whether there's any substance at all in these
Castlereagh break-in charges. Because if as seems likely it
turns out that they're baseless, or at least far less serious
than was being suggested then it will seem as if Trimble
has thrown everything away for nothing.
As soon as he decided getting tough with SF was going to
be the name of the game then he was straightaway passing the
intitiative to the likes of the DUP and creeps like Donaldson
in his own party. And then bringing about an election thus
allowing them to copper-bottom their advantage.
Basically its very hard to see how Trimble could have made
a bigger mess of things than he has.
I don't share your broader analysis btw. I don't personally think
dinasours like Paisley need to be confronted at all, rather they can
be marginalised to the extent they become an irrelevence. As are the
white supremacists who still live in SA, well away from the glare
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
michael adams
...
michael adams
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:58:29 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >But what I am saying, is that some of the characters in The Office
> >> > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >are a lot more demonstrative than some of the characters in
Eastenders
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> OK then, so what's the overall trend?
> >>
> >> >Sufficiently so at least, so as to invalidate any suggestion of
> >> >"demonstrativeness" as being an essential distinguishing
characteristic
> >> >between the two genres.
> >> >
> >> >As evidenced by the Welsh birthday woman in this Wednesday's episode,
> >> >who again was very far from being undemonstrative.
> >>
> >> Any fool can point to a particular peak or trough of demonstrativeness
> >> in either series and champion that as making their argument.
> >>
> >> I'm sure you'll agree with me though that what we really need to
> >> consider here is the median level of demonstrativeness.
> >>
> >> Could you address that issue please.
>
>
...
I'd prefer to stick to Eastenders as thats the only one I watch
even if only occasionally. There's a *good* storyline started this
week. Much demonstrativeness. etc.
I don't feel happy generalising as I'm not sure if there aren't
differences between the various soaps.
...
>
> >> By the way, just heard Seamus Close of the Alliance Party on the radio
> >> squealing about the "hoops" through which voters had struggle in order
> >> to register and vote. Thankfully someone in Alliance has more of a
> >> clue than their SCI Rep, Mr Header.
> >>
> >> Amusing too that the Unionist "family", in going for the DUP, managed
> >> at a stroke to wipe out every strategic negotiating advantage they
> >> had. Steven King, one of the authors of the UUP policy that lead to
> >> this situation, wasn't too pleased, though it will paradoxically
> >> benefit NI as a whole.
> >>
> >> King's got one of those PhD thingies too.
> >>
> >> Hoot!
>
> >I don't know about King
>
> He is one of Trimble's strategic and tactical advisors, probably the
> most important one. Himself and other well-educated yuppie types like
> him (including Peter Weir, now DUP) were trumpeted in the early days
> of the process as having the intellectual, political and analytical
> skills to outwit the the fenian grunts over at SF HQ, at the playing
> of the political game.
>
> snigger
>
> > I simply can't make head nor tail of
> >what Trimble's strategy in all this was supposed to be.
>
> His strategy was supposed to be to extract concessions from SF to
> placate the No-men in both his own Party and in the electorate as a
> whole.
>
> What he never understood was that the No-men in the electorate were
> implacable, and that his political enemies in both UUP and DUP would
> always use that fact to bring him down, no matter what he did.
>
> So, rather than talking-up the Agreement, he always talked it down,
> highlighted problems in it and so on, and media too were constantly
> talking about the problems in it, to support him ironically.. His
> every action ensured that his enemies in both the electorate and in
> both UUP and DUP were strengthened.
>
> He just couldn't win at what he was doing.
...
Exactly. He had to try and make it work. Suspending the thing
at every opportunity - and of his own doing - simply showed up
his own policy as being a failure. Whereas the longer it stayed
on the rails the stronger his position would have become.
I do find his whole approach totally incomprehensible to be
quite honest.
...
>
> And let's not forget Budgie. He played his part too.
>
> The DUP on the other hand won't have the "looking over the shoulders"
> problem that he had because everyone assumes that they're more
> implacable than he.
>
> But they will have the problem that if they don't deliver something
> before the next election then they may have lost their chance to be
> the dominant Unionist Party because the UUP aren't that far behind
> them in percent vote.
>
> The DUP may come to be seen as no more than blusterers if they don't
> deliver something and soon.
>
> And of course the Governments can make life very difficult for the DUP
> and wait for the UUP to come back at another election.
>
...
But with Trimble having to fight off the likes of Jeffrey
Donaldson ?
...
> The reality is that the DUP have to be very good boys because they
> have even less cards to play than the UUP had.
>
> >The final irony in all this will finally be played out when its
> >established whether there's any substance at all in these
> >Castlereagh break-in charges. Because if as seems likely it
> >turns out that they're baseless, or at least far less serious
> >than was being suggested then it will seem as if Trimble
> >has thrown everything away for nothing.
> >
> >As soon as he decided getting tough with SF was going to
> >be the name of the game then he was straightaway passing the
> >intitiative to the likes of the DUP and creeps like Donaldson
> >in his own party. And then bringing about an election thus
> >allowing them to copper-bottom their advantage.
> >
> >Basically its very hard to see how Trimble could have made
> >a bigger mess of things than he has.
>
> >I don't share your broader analysis btw. I don't personally think
> >dinasours like Paisley need to be confronted at all, rather they can
> >be marginalised to the extent they become an irrelevence. As are the
> >white supremacists who still live in SA, well away from the glare
> >of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
>
> Do you mean marginalise the whole of the DUP until another election?
>
...
No, really I suppose I mean they should have been marginalised
already by Trimble. Basically to me the GFA is a bandwagon effect -
so that once it gets rolling everything - all the stumbling blocks -
fall into place in its wake. This is what Trimble didn't appear to
realise. By stopping and starting all the momentum is lost every
time.
...
> It's possible.
>
> I don't think the DUP will be so foolish and will play the game.
> They'll just have to bluff their electorate, or miss their chance.
>
> In any event all the pressure is on them now.
>
...
Yes and no.
As long as they can succeed in bringing any further progress to
a halt they can look on that as a victory of sorts.
The only difference now is the threat of joint sovereignty. IIRR
Robinson was quoted as saying they don't expect devolved government
to return for another 10 years. i.e. around 90 years earlier than
an SDLP\SF merger.
michael adams
sorry can't get round to concentrating sufficiently
on the consciousness stuff thread at the moment.
Got concrete troll going on the racing group as well.
michael adams
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:14:16 -0000, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> >But what I am saying, is that some of the characters in The Office
> >> >> > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >> >are a lot more demonstrative than some of the characters in
> >Eastenders
> >> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> >^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >>
> >> >> OK then, so what's the overall trend?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Sufficiently so at least, so as to invalidate any suggestion of
> >> >> >"demonstrativeness" as being an essential distinguishing
> >characteristic
> >> >> >between the two genres.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As evidenced by the Welsh birthday woman in this Wednesday's
episode,
> >> >> >who again was very far from being undemonstrative.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any fool can point to a particular peak or trough of
demonstrativeness
> >> >> in either series and champion that as making their argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sure you'll agree with me though that what we really need to
> >> >> consider here is the median level of demonstrativeness.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you address that issue please.
> >>
> >> >Are you referring solely to Eastenders here ?
> >>
> >> General soaps of that nature, featuring ordinary people will do.
>
> >even if only occasionally. There's a *good* storyline started this
> >week. Much demonstrativeness. etc.
> >
> >I don't feel happy generalising as I'm not sure if there aren't
> >differences between the various soaps.
>
> when Dirty Den was in it.
...
I don't know if you've read about it but Dirty Den has made
a comeback. It's been quite a success.
The actor playing the resident baddie, Phil Mitchell wanted a break,
and so they brought back Dirty Den to stitch him up. They robbed a
factory together, and to get out they had to climb a ladder out of
a skylight. Dirty Den sent Phil back into the Factory, climbed out
and pulled up the ladder.
Total tosh but very watchable nevertheless.
Eastenders is like that. Occassional peaks - when its worth watching -
and in between dross when its not. Over there, they watch the lot.
There are so many, they have to tape them. Emmerdale Stenders Corrie
Fair City Neighbours. Just like the Auntie used to be with the
fillums.
It's hard to fault your political analysis, including your criticism
of Bew, in the Nixon in China thread.
So I won't even try.
michael adams
...
SammyM
>
> "Conor Booze O Brien" wrote:
> > Right. I don't really watch it at all. I'm going from what I
remember
> > when Dirty Den was in it.
>
>
> I don't know if you've read about it but Dirty Den has made
> a comeback. It's been quite a success.
Just a Nordie contribution here.
(Don't want you to get bored with each other's company : ) )
Dirty Den (Leslie Grantham) is at the Belfast Opera House in this year's
pantomime.
- Dick Whittington.
SammyM