Galunggung Gliding Club.
Graham.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Rusty Hinge
> An appropriate time to post this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
Is that cloud still about, then?
--
Rusty
John Williamson
have been stopped due to the new eruption this morning near Iceland,
according to French and British news sources.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Sunny Bard
> An appropriate time to post this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
They had the pilote on the wireless this morning, they lost all four
injuns at FL370, not realising what they were flying into, they didn't
come out of the ash cloud until FL150, still the injuns wouldn't restart
until they were at FL120
Austin Shackles
enlightened us thusly:
>An appropriate time to post this.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
which led me to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
although for a gliding story, I still like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_glider
which features in this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236#Similar_Incidents
The Gimli Glider page has another list, not identical:
bobharvey
> An appropriate time to post this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
or not.
I are stuck in Zurich, trying to get to Stavanger
Said on;t news that 8000 people had been evacuated from Rejkiavik.
Which prompteeed these thoughts:
* where to?
* Isn't that all of them?
Frank Erskine
<robert...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I are stuck in Zurich, trying to get to Stavanger
IRTA:- "Stevenage".
--
Frank Erskine
Andrew Marshall
<frank....@btinternet.com> writes
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT), bobharvey
><robert...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>I are stuck in Zurich, trying to get to Stavanger
>IRTA:- "Stevenage".
A few hectofortnights ago, Geoff was asked for directions by a man whose
English appeared not to be his first language. At first he insisted that
he wanted to get to Stavanger. Geoff was wondering whether to give him
directions to an East Coast port for a ferry, but it soon turned out
that he meant Stevenage.
--
Regards,
Andrew Marshall, G8BUR, M0MAA.
Unsolicited advertising matter unwelcome. Offenders may be blacklisted.
Dave Larrington
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
Total shutdown until at least 01:00 tomorrow according to A Scientist on the
wireless this morning.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Beware of the opion.
Dave Larrington
Graham. <m...@privacy.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
Shamelessly nicked from el swear:
who is going to TAX this volcanoe for it's carbon dioxode emmission?!! ANd
the eco Fascists want to BAN us from driving a car but Icelnad is emiitting
HUNDRDS times more than Britiain because of this volcaneo. Why can they get
away with it? Becaue they are not in the European Union of socialism that
taxes us thousands of pounds and NuLiebore lets them get away with it but
not me. We should REFUSE TO PAY ALL TAXES until they make Iceland pay
COMPENSATION for the canceled flights and the co2 emmitted, not that co2 has
anything to do with global warming (sorry I mean climate change forgot they
changed the name) because CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANIGNG FOR MILLIONS OF
YEARS which is why Iceland was once called Greenland and tehy had to change
the name to Iceland when the climate got COLDER instead of WARMER totally
disproving the SCAM that is AGW.
WAKE UP people!!!!!!! This volcanoe is yet another reason why Brown and
LieBore must go. Only a vote for UKIP on 9th of May will end the scam and
prvent Iceland and the EU from canceling even more flights.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
und keine Eie.
John Williamson
> WAKE UP people!!!!!!! This volcanoe is yet another reason why Brown and
> LieBore must go. Only a vote for UKIP on 9th of May will end the scam and
> prvent Iceland and the EU from canceling even more flights.
<Grin>
I'll be either sleeping or working on May 9th. OTOH, I'll probably
*vote* on May 6th, along with everyone else.
John Williamson
Mike Smith
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:82r5ig...@mid.individual.net...
When considering how best to waste my vote I spent some time on the
.politics groups - The foregoing is pretty much what a lot of those are
like, ho hum.
Mike
Roger Hunt
>In news:hq7d7g$8iu$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>Graham. <m...@privacy.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> An appropriate time to post this.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>
>Shamelessly nicked from el swear:
>
>who is going to TAX this volcanoe for it's carbon dioxode emmission?!!
This type of volcano emits probably less CO2 than I do walking up a
hill, so the CO2 emitted while collecting the CO2 tax probably would
exceed the original emission, and that CO2 emission tax collection
emission should rightly itself have to be taxed anyway.
--
Roger Hunt
bobharvey
> In uk.rec.sheds, (bobharvey) wrote in
> <9349d4fa-681b-4f84-9211-ef85a6472...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>::
> about 10x that.
Heard on Rajio 5:
"I went into the garden and got hit on the head by a frozen pizza, a
black forest gateau, and a bag of prawns. I think it was fallout from
Iceland."
Roger Hunt
Richard Bos
> Dave Larrington <ne...@legslarry.org.uk> wrote
> >Shamelessly nicked from el swear:
> >
> >who is going to TAX this volcanoe for it's carbon dioxode emmission?!!
>
> This type of volcano emits probably less CO2 than I do walking up a
> hill, so the CO2 emitted while collecting the CO2 tax probably would
> exceed the original emission, and that CO2 emission tax collection
> emission should rightly itself have to be taxed anyway.
Yebbut, when did facts even bother what passes for a brain in a UKIP
voter?
Richard
Roger Hunt
might exist, but then I woke up.
--
Roger Hunt
Ancipital
> Yebbut, when did facts even bother what passes for a brain in a UKIP
> voter?
I have been enjoying the nutter on "Any Answers" castigating The
Guvmint, and demanding that they lay on transatlantic shipping. He
didn't quite get to the pitch of the HYSers, ranting about "Gordon
Clown" and "ZaNuLieBore", but it was still one of the best loonygrams
that I have heard in ages.
(Connection, sounded exactly like UKIP spokesentities usually do)
bobharvey
> I are stuck in Zurich, trying to get to Stavanger
First seats Monday, if anyone believes that. So I am on the hook all
weekend.
I've bought a swisscard rover ticket and just been leaping from train
to train as they look interesting.
So far today:
Zurich-Wadenswil
Wadenswil-Arth Goldau via Bibberbrugg, narrow gauge
Then to Luzern, for a wander round and a stare at the paddle steamers
(done them before)
Narrow gauge to Interlaken via Sarnen and Meiringen
Then through the Golden valley to Zweisimmen, change to a golden
valley version of the orient express with green velvet armchairs and
brass luggage racks and on to Montreux.
AM now in the Hotel duLac et Parc right on the promenade at Montreaux,
in a room redolant of senapr. Blue floral wallpaper all over walls,
wardrobe doors, and ceiling. Nice enough barth room with terrifying
electrics and a gbvyrg gung jba'g syhfu. (wocab) There is a peruvian
pipe band playing 5 streets below and I can hear them perfectly. I
think they have a flattery powered amplifier, turned up to 11.1 View
over lake and promenade gardens, in a hotel that looks exactly like
those french hotels in black and white where SOE girls in raincoats
and headscarfs would set up a radio transmitter in a suit case. The
receptionist here is an old man who has not shaved for two days, has a
gitane hanging out of his gob, and (as always seems to happen to me in
serapu fcrnxvat) who can understand my questions in anglish but
answeres in serapu.
I love it, it is like a holiday in an episode of /The Persuaders/. No
need to wait near the airport, life is not a dress rehearsal.
Oh, and the wifi is provided free of charge by the city council, all
through the town.
Sunny Bard
> The receptionist has a gitane hanging out of his gob,
> can understand my questions in anglish but answeres in serapu.
Qu'avez-vous attendu?
bobharvey
Nothing else, certainly.
Rusty Hinge
I were referring to the Indo knees Ian one innit.
--
Rusty
Rusty Hinge
If it's genuine, which I doubt. Prolly a Notional Affront smear of you
kip if you like.
--
Rusty
Rusty Hinge
Aye. I appreciated it TAAAW,
--
Rusty
bobharvey
<ancipitalISPERSUEDBYEVILCLO...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/04/2010 13:31, Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > Yebbut, when did facts even bother what passes for a brain in a UKIP
> > voter?
>
> I have been enjoying the nutter on "Any Answers" castigating The
> Guvmint, and demanding that they lay on transatlantic shipping.
Any Answers must be a real problem for old Dimbeleby. He must need
injections to keep himself from laughing out loud.
bobharvey
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT), bobharvey
>
> >I are stuck in Zurich, trying to get to Stavanger
>
> IRTA:- "Stevenage".
The money men are beginning to get nervous:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8628323.stm
If they resume flights while the cloud is still there I am certainly
not getting on the first one. I'd rather stay in Zurich until I've
seen some evidence that it is safe. Or get on the train.
Graham.
>>
>> > Yebbut, when did facts even bother what passes for a brain in a UKIP
>> > voter?
>>
>> I have been enjoying the nutter on "Any Answers" castigating The
>> Guvmint, and demanding that they lay on transatlantic shipping.
>
> Any Answers must be a real problem for old Dimbeleby. He must need
> injections to keep himself from laughing out loud.
I must unforget that the new one is old now.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Ancipital
>> I have been enjoying the nutter on "Any Answers" castigating The
>> Guvmint, and demanding that they lay on transatlantic shipping.
>
> Any Answers must be a real problem for old Dimbeleby. He must need
> injections to keep himself from laughing out loud.
He doesn't always succeed entirely, too.
bobharvey
The tyggers are quite vehement too. http://www.tellyougov.com/leaderboard
Skipweasel
from Roger Hunt <nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> I might have been basking in a short-lived glow of optimism that a date
> might exist, but then I woke up.
Talking of dates...
When do you think this was written?
"There is one issue the campaign ought to bring out. Granted that we
want full employment and social security, how much state control must be
accepted and what freedoms curtailed?
The Conservatives believe that the deired objectives can be attained
with only a moderate degree of state control, in particular without
taking industrial property out of private hands. They have to convince
[us] that private capitalism is prepared and competent to discipline
itself.
The socialists believe that the desired objectives call for a great deal
of state control and, in particular, for the immediate nationalisation
of certain key industries. They have to convince [us] that this policy
can be carried through without crippling the springs of individual
enterprise.
On the whole, Liberals believe that the monopolistic tendencies of big
business require more drastic correction than Conservatives admit, while
they deny that the only sure remedy is nationalisation. They have to
show that their programme [...] would not fail by trying to grasp too
much of both."
Which came from The Observer this week in 1945.
--
Skipweasel
Not to be sniffed at.
Skipweasel
from Roger Hunt <nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> It was an act of Cod.
I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
silly it was, too. But perhaps the most striking thing was the clarity
of the blue skies. Took me back to my yoof, when a contrail across the
sky (this is mid 60s) was relatively unusual. To see the sky clear of
the beastly things now was most enjoyable.
black-dog
<skipw...@homeinthe.shed> wrote:
>I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
>silly it was, too. But perhaps the most striking thing was the clarity
>of the blue skies. Took me back to my yoof, when a contrail across the
>sky (this is mid 60s) was relatively unusual. To see the sky clear of
>the beastly things now was most enjoyable.
Like this?
http://www.4theweb.co.uk/snowdon/summit.jpg
Doesn't seem real does it?
--
black-dog
Money will buy you a good dog, but it won't buy you a wag of its tail.
Roger Hunt
National No-Drive Week!
National No-Alcohol Week! (Ha!)
--
Roger Hunt
Skipweasel
from black-dog <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> contains these words:
> >I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
> >silly it was, too. But perhaps the most striking thing was the clarity
> >of the blue skies. Took me back to my yoof, when a contrail across the
> >sky (this is mid 60s) was relatively unusual. To see the sky clear of
> >the beastly things now was most enjoyable.
> Like this?
> http://www.4theweb.co.uk/snowdon/summit.jpg
> Doesn't seem real does it?
That's it exactly - I've been trying to get the kids to remember it 'cos
it ain't going to happen often.
Richard Robinson
Well, it's not just them. The last time that volcano did its thing, it did
it for a couple of years. Lots of people are going to start wanting more
accurate info. about what's possible & what isn't.
One minor example : I'm going to Greece in a few weeks, and have made
promises about being back here, the day after the return flight. Which
seemed fine, on the assumption of "flight is normal". If flight might happen
or not, depending only on how the wind's blowing that day, it all looks a
bit different.
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html
Richard Robinson
It is nice to see skies without them, I agree. But I do find myself capable
of considering them beautiful, sometimes. Especially at dawn/dusk, when
they're catching the sun & down here isn't.
Rusty Hinge
> Skipweasel said:
>> The message <sMl+WJAl...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>> from Roger Hunt <nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>>
>>> It was an act of Cod.
>> I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
>> silly it was, too. But perhaps the most striking thing was the clarity
>> of the blue skies. Took me back to my yoof, when a contrail across the
>> sky (this is mid 60s) was relatively unusual. To see the sky clear of
>> the beastly things now was most enjoyable.
>
>
> It is nice to see skies without them, I agree. But I do find myself capable
> of considering them beautiful, sometimes. Especially at dawn/dusk, when
> they're catching the sun & down here isn't.
I have a pic somewhere of a perfick circle caught by the setting sun.
Turned out it were deliberately done by some military pilot - but it
molished fhe fromt page of the Eastern Daily Press innit.
--
Rusty
Rob
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:15:20 +0100, Skipweasel
> <skipw...@homeinthe.shed> wrote:
>
> >I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
> >silly it was, too. But perhaps the most striking thing was the clarity
> >of the blue skies. Took me back to my yoof, when a contrail across the
> >sky (this is mid 60s) was relatively unusual. To see the sky clear of
> >the beastly things now was most enjoyable.
>
> Like this?
> http://www.4theweb.co.uk/snowdon/summit.jpg
>
> Doesn't seem real does it?
That you Geoff? Thought you'd dropped the black dog...
--
So many cats
So few recipes
Skipweasel
from Skipweasel <skipw...@homeinthe.shed> contains these words:
> I've been in Wales all weekend with the junior Ruigby Club tour. Very
> silly it was, too.
If you want to see just how silly in bits - try the It's a Knockout page
on this...
black-dog
(Rob) wrote:
>> Doesn't seem real does it?
>
>That you Geoff? Thought you'd dropped the black dog...
Depends where I am...:)
Dr Ivan D. Reid
<rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk>
wrote in <hqibgv$rhs$3...@news.eternal-september.org>:
> I have a pic somewhere of a perfick circle caught by the setting sun.
> Turned out it were deliberately done by some military pilot - but it
> molished fhe fromt page of the Eastern Daily Press innit.
We'd get that sometime in the setting sun framed down the Limmat
valley to Untersiggenthal. Looked like Luftwaffe pilots coming as close
as they dared to the Rhine before pulling a high-G turn back north again.
--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Richard Bos
> Talking of dates...
>
> When do you think this was written?
>
> "There is one issue the campaign ought to bring out. Granted that we
> want full employment and social security, how much state control must be
> accepted and what freedoms curtailed?
> The Conservatives believe that the deired objectives can be attained
> with only a moderate degree of state control, in particular without
> taking industrial property out of private hands. They have to convince
> [us] that private capitalism is prepared and competent to discipline
> itself.
> The socialists believe that the desired objectives call for a great deal
> of state control and, in particular, for the immediate nationalisation
> of certain key industries. They have to convince [us] that this policy
> can be carried through without crippling the springs of individual
> enterprise.
> On the whole, Liberals believe that the monopolistic tendencies of big
> business require more drastic correction than Conservatives admit, while
> they deny that the only sure remedy is nationalisation. They have to
> show that their programme [...] would not fail by trying to grasp too
> much of both."
>
>
> Which came from The Observer this week in 1945.
And nothing has changed, including the fact that the Liberals may get
any amount of attention and favourable pre-election polls, but when push
comes to shove, 90% of Britons shit their pants at the sight of more
than two tickboxes on a voting paper, and will vote Old Firm like the
good little ConserLabourVatives their daddies scared them into being.
Unfair? Disagree with me? Don't tell me, today, in this newsgroup.
_Show_ me, May 6th, in the election results. I've stopped believing what
UKians claim about their political predilections - it never fits with
the final counts.
Richard
bobharvey
> I've stopped believing what
> UKians claim about their political predilections - it never fits with
> the final counts.
It's an old British tradition that stupid questions deserve stupid
answers.
Skipweasel
from ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) contains these words:
> Unfair? Disagree with me? Don't tell me, today, in this newsgroup.
> _Show_ me, May 6th, in the election results. I've stopped believing what
> UKians claim about their political predilections - it never fits with
> the final counts.
I've voted Liberal all my life. The only time I didn't was when I missed
an election 'cos we moved house after the registration date and fell off
one register but were unable to get on another.
Richard Robinson
>
> And nothing has changed, including the fact that the Liberals may get
> any amount of attention and favourable pre-election polls, but when push
> comes to shove, 90% of Britons shit their pants at the sight of more
> than two tickboxes on a voting paper, and will vote Old Firm like the
> good little ConserLabourVatives their daddies scared them into being.
>
> Unfair? Disagree with me? Don't tell me, today, in this newsgroup.
> _Show_ me, May 6th, in the election results. I've stopped believing what
> UKians claim about their political predilections - it never fits with
> the final counts.
Would it not be easier
In that case for you
To dissolve the British people
And elect another?
John Williamson
> Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Would it not be easier
>> In that case for you
>> To dissolve the British people
>> And elect another?
>
>
Jonge Genevers?
Woods Old Navy?
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
<johnwil...@btinternet.com>
wrote in <83gee5...@mid.individual.net>:
Empirically proven to work every Saturday night in the High Street...
Rusty Hinge
> Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Would it not be easier
>> In that case for you
>> To dissolve the British people
>> And elect another?
>
> What would be the appropriate solvent?
BA
--
Rusty
Richard Bos
> from ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) contains these words:
>
> > Unfair? Disagree with me? Don't tell me, today, in this newsgroup.
> > _Show_ me, May 6th, in the election results. I've stopped believing what
> > UKians claim about their political predilections - it never fits with
> > the final counts.
>
> I've voted Liberal all my life. The only time I didn't was when I missed
> an election 'cos we moved house after the registration date and fell off
> one register but were unable to get on another.
Oh, I believe _you_. I also believe all the other, ooh, baker's dozen or
so of people on Usenet who say they've voted Liberal, Democrat, Green or
whatever before and will do so again.
Who I do not believe are the millions upon millions[35] of people who
have voted LaboServative all their lives[99], have now for the first
time ever seen someone from a non-ConservAbour party in action, and were
surprised enough that he appeared human and alive to tell the polling
agencies that they might vote for him.
Maybe you will get twice as many _actual_, not just promised, votes as
you did last time. Given your broken election system, this will probably
give you about 50% more MPs at most. And the end result will still be
the Old Firm party in power, and a Thatcherite, Neo-Con government, just
like the last thirty years.
(At times, it's almost funny how the idiocy in UK politics is very near
the opposite of NL political idiocy. Almost.)
Richard
[35] And they must be millions upon millions, for the polls to show
rough equity for the LibDems with the two main parties
[99] Or not voted at all, which in practice is the very same thing
Rusty Hinge
> (At times, it's almost funny how the idiocy in UK politics is very near
> the opposite of NL political idiocy. Almost.)
You ought not to criticise our idiocies, we hold them very dear. It's
just the price of them we don't want to pay.
--
Rusty
Richard Bos
So, you want New ConservaLabour, but you don't want New ConservaLabour?
Anyway, it's not your idiosyncracies I criticise. Well, maybe I do; but
I criticise _those_ with a smile. It's your not entirely honest
inconsistencies that I am a bit more acerbic about. You _can't_ vote
with your yellow liver without paying the price, and don't tell me that
you insist that you want to. You may want to all you want, but unless
the British learn to vote with their hearts and minds rather than with
their tabloid-induced fear of anything Not New ConservaLabour, you
_will_ pay the price, want it or not. And you know it.
It's your government; you may elect Prime Minister Griffin, if you want
to. Or even re-elect CameroBroon. Just don't come complaining to me when
the corruption stays in place, as well. _You_ voted for it. This is your
one chance to make sure that it really _is_ the politicians who are to
blame, and not the voters. Because when ConservaLabour gets voted in
_again_ on Thursday, that's exactly who will be to blame: you, the
voters.
(Oh, and one more thing, lest this be unclear: I'm not hammering on
about this because I like to dislike you Brits. I'm doing so because I
_like_ you. If you'd been the Treznaf, I would not have given a
fliegender Fick whether you voted in Merkel, Steinmeier, or Kunast. If
Orytvnaf, well... to be honest, you'd be up a creek without a paddle
anyway, and the only solution would seem a complete revamp of their
state betnavfngvba.
But you're British, and I like the British, and therefore, want them to
be happy. And what, over the last oh so many years, has made Britons not
happy but furious? Corrupt politics. About which you, collectively,
heartily, and justifiedly, have been complaining. And when you get the
chance to vote for someone else, you collectively, heartily and not so
justifiedly claim that doing so would waste your vote, and proceed to
_actually_ waste your vote by voting the Old Lot back in.
Now, when someone you like is unhappy with a situation, but his own
behavious perpetuates that situation, what should you do? Say "Yes, yes,
very nice, very well done, sad about the situation, isn't it"? Or point
out that he could have helped himself, had he but had the guts, and in
doing so perhaps help him help himself ameliorate the situation in the
future? I prefer to choose the latter.)
Richard
Rusty Hinge
> Rusty Hinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Richard Bos wrote:
>>
>>> (At times, it's almost funny how the idiocy in UK politics is very near
>>> the opposite of NL political idiocy. Almost.)
>> You ought not to criticise our idiocies, we hold them very dear. It's
>> just the price of them we don't want to pay.
>
> So, you want New ConservaLabour, but you don't want New ConservaLabour?
I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all unnecessary
legislation.
I want it to keep its collective nose out of anything which doesn't
concern it.
It should listen to what other opinions are thrown at it, and allow them
to influence its actions - though not necessarily positively...
Clause four should apply to all the service industries - water, gas,
electrickery, telecoms, rail and roads - with the proviso that private
industries may compete, for instance, renting tracktime on rolways,
bidding for roadbuilding/repairing contracts, supplying electrickery,
telecom connections, etc.
There should be a publicly-owned airline - if it can survive.
The House of Lords *JBEXF*. It should be left alone and not meddled
with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say - but
not before a hell of a struggle.
Oh, and lots, lots more. Frinstance, reduce indirect taxation such as
vat, 'cos the less you rena the greater proportion of it you pay. Molish
Nationl Inn Sewer Ants to mean just that - you pay in and the zbarl is
invested, not hfrq as a tax, and benefits should be paid out of the
vapbzr from the pot of zbarl, not from current payments/taxation.
Oh, and lots, lots, lots more...
Join the Rusty Party and get a place in my cabinet.
Hurry, hurry, hurry!
> Anyway, it's not your idiosyncracies I criticise. Well, maybe I do; but
> I criticise _those_ with a smile. It's your not entirely honest
> inconsistencies that I am a bit more acerbic about.
All my inconsistencies are honest, guv, innit.
> You _can't_ vote
> with your yellow liver without paying the price, and don't tell me that
> you insist that you want to. You may want to all you want, but unless
> the British learn to vote with their hearts and minds rather than with
> their tabloid-induced fear of anything Not New ConservaLabour, you
> _will_ pay the price, want it or not. And you know it.
Tabloid? Are you inferring that I read tabloids? *AND* that I would be
influenced by anything written (or pictured) therein?
The Sun? The Mirror? The (what's left?) The Sport? The Maul or the Depress?
I'd read the Times, but for its proprietor.
> It's your government; you may elect Prime Minister Griffin, if you want
> to. Or even re-elect CameroBroon. Just don't come complaining to me when
> the corruption stays in place, as well. _You_ voted for it. This is your
> one chance to make sure that it really _is_ the politicians who are to
> blame, and not the voters. Because when ConservaLabour gets voted in
> _again_ on Thursday, that's exactly who will be to blame: you, the
> voters.
ConLibDem or LabLibDem even.
One has to vote for someone on the ticket, or spoil it perhaps, to have
any influence. Unfortunately, the Rusty Party doesn't feature.
> (Oh, and one more thing, lest this be unclear: I'm not hammering on
> about this because I like to dislike you Brits. I'm doing so because I
> _like_ you. If you'd been the Treznaf, I would not have given a
> fliegender Fick whether you voted in Merkel, Steinmeier, or Kunast. If
> Orytvnaf, well... to be honest, you'd be up a creek without a paddle
> anyway, and the only solution would seem a complete revamp of their
> state betnavfngvba.
This is Preposterous Representation at jbex. In any case, the
unspeakable (according to all but Z. Beeblebrox) will never be untied as
long as Flemings and Walloons love each other as much as they do. Even
the Rusty Party doesn't have an answer to that.
> But you're British, and I like the British, and therefore, want them to
> be happy. And what, over the last oh so many years, has made Britons not
> happy but furious? Corrupt politics. About which you, collectively,
> heartily, and justifiedly, have been complaining. And when you get the
> chance to vote for someone else, you collectively, heartily and not so
> justifiedly claim that doing so would waste your vote, and proceed to
> _actually_ waste your vote by voting the Old Lot back in.
It's all very well saying that, but whomsoever you look at, is promising
the earth, or some wholesome bits of it, and maybe they mean it.
Unfortunately, politicians are almost undeniably human beings, and human
beings as we all know, are frail. Those of us who go to church even
admit it out loud, sometimes more than once a week.
Then forget it, and f(r)ail.
For (insert politician's name) is an honourable man, so are they all,
all honourable men.
The noble Richard hath told you (insert politician's name) is ambitious,
If that were so, it was a greedy fault, and greedily hath (insert
politician's name) answered it.
I goove the whole play could be 'adapted' thusly, or worsererly.
> Now, when someone you like is unhappy with a situation, but his own
> behavious perpetuates that situation, what should you do? Say "Yes, yes,
> very nice, very well done, sad about the situation, isn't it"? Or point
> out that he could have helped himself, had he but had the guts, and in
> doing so perhaps help him help himself ameliorate the situation in the
> future? I prefer to choose the latter.)
So would most people, but the practicalities mitigate against it. When
Screaming Lors Sutch started the Monster Raving Loony Party the Polly
Titians raised the deposit that candidates had to stake just to
discourage frivolity.
It's no laughing matter. Pity Sutch suffered from depression, he might
have becoe Prime Mincer on Thursday.
--
Rusty
Richard Robinson
>>
> The House of Lords *JBEXF*. It should be left alone and not meddled
> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
> more self-importance
It would also make it subject to the same pressures as the Commons. The same
advertising agencies, techniques, empty promises and hollow men (oh, and
women, mustn't forget the ladies, eh ? <nasty patronising smirk>). A
check-and-balance should come from a different angle, not moreofthesame.
JonG
> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all unnecessary
> legislation.
> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
Amen to that.
It should be left alone and not meddled
> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say - but
> not before a hell of a struggle.
>
Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
democratically-elected house.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - except, of course, that from the
perspective of a venal government of any colour, their actions show that
it Is broke.
--
JonG
I went to the polling station, but the only option
given was to vote for one or other of the politicians.
Catman
> Rusty Hinge wrote:
>
>> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all
>> unnecessary legislation.
>
>
>
>> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
>
> Amen to that.
>
> It should be left alone and not meddled
>> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
>> but not before a hell of a struggle.
>>
>
> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
> democratically-elected house.
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it - except, of course, that from the
> perspective of a venal government of any colour, their actions show that
> it Is broke.
>
Hear hear!
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
John Williamson
> Rusty Hinge wrote:
>
> Amen to that.
>
> It should be left alone and not meddled
>> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
>> but not before a hell of a struggle.
>>
>
> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
> democratically-elected house.
>
I rather think that the reason for that is that the members of the House
of Lords who turn up, discuss items, then vote are the ones who actually
know and care about the subject under discussion. They also tend to be
rich enough from outside sources that they can't be easily bought, and
have time and leisure to research things thoroughly. The members in the
H of C tend to be politicians first, and have often held no notable
positions in commerce or acedemic circles.
Make it an elected chamber, and it'll be the ones who are paid and told
to turn up and vote in a certain way that do so. The House of Commons
mark two, in fact.
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it - except, of course, that from the
> perspective of a venal government of any colour, their actions show that
> it Is broke.
>
It definitely wasn't broken before the current gibberment started meddling.
IMO, HAND, and so forth....
Richard Robinson
> JonG wrote:
>> Rusty Hinge wrote:
>>> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
>>
>> Amen to that.
>>
> Seconded.
>
>> It should be left alone and not meddled
>>> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>>> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
>>> but not before a hell of a struggle.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
>> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
>> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
>> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
>> democratically-elected house.
>>
> I rather think that the reason for that is that the members of the House
> of Lords who turn up, discuss items, then vote are the ones who actually
> know and care about the subject under discussion. They also tend to be
> rich enough from outside sources that they can't be easily bought, and
> have time and leisure to research things thoroughly. The members in the
> H of C tend to be politicians first, and have often held no notable
> positions in commerce or acedemic circles.
Can't be *easily* obhtug, right enough. Neil Hamilton was asking a measly
couple of grand, Lord ?Taylor? was asking many times that. Mind you, he was
offering a more significant service.
John Williamson
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581570.ece
But they all claimed later to know it was a sting. Naturally.....
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Znep <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In uk.rec.sheds, (JonG) wrote in
> <4be034c6$0$30192$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>::
>
> >Rusty Hinge wrote:
> >
> >> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all
> >> unnecessary legislation.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
> >
> >Amen to that.
> >
> >It should be left alone and not meddled
> >> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
> >> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
> >> but not before a hell of a struggle.
> >>
> >
> >Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
> >to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
> >life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
> >the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
> >democratically-elected house.
>
> Oh, it jbexf, sure- but is it *fair*?
Who cares as long as it jbexf.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Richard Robinson
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:15:13 +0100
> Znep <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>> In uk.rec.sheds, (JonG) wrote in
>> >
>> >> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all
>> >> unnecessary legislation.
>> >
>> >> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
>> >
>> >Amen to that.
>> >
>> >It should be left alone and not meddled
>> >> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>> >> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
>> >> but not before a hell of a struggle.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
>> >to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
>> >life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
>> >the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
>> >democratically-elected house.
>>
>> Oh, it jbexf, sure- but is it *fair*?
>
> Who cares as long as it jbexf.
The question of "fairness" could be recast as "how _many_ people does it
jbex for ?" ?
Ancipital
> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
> democratically-elected house.
>
Yeah, that's most assuredly the fing. I remember my law lecturer saying
exactly the same with a look of mild irritation on his face. He was
right, too, but wasn't able to explain why to either our or his
satisfaction.
Ancipital
>> Yeah, that's most assuredly the fing. I remember my law lecturer saying
>> exactly the same with a look of mild irritation on his face. He was
>> right, too, but wasn't able to explain why to either our or his
>> satisfaction.
>
> Well, at least part of it is the freedom to tell people things they
> don't (collectively) want to hear, such as the truth.
It's a combination of various factors, seasoned with a dash of
cussedness and skepticism, I suspect.
Richard Robinson
"Noblesse oblige" ?
Skipweasel
from Ancipital <ancipitalISPERS...@hotmail.com> contains
these words:
I tried to have this out with a canvasser some years ago. They kept
repeating that it wasn't fair to allow unelected people to govern but
couldn't say how it would be better to have elected old duffers rather
than appointed old duffers.
JonG
>>> I rather think that the reason for that is that the members of the
>>> House of Lords who turn up, discuss items, then vote are the ones who
>>> actually know and care about the subject under discussion. They also
>>> tend to be rich enough from outside sources that they can't be easily
>>> bought, and have time and leisure to research things thoroughly. The
>>> members in the H of C tend to be politicians first, and have often
>>> held no notable positions in commerce or acedemic circles.
>>
>> Can't be *easily* obhtug, right enough. Neil Hamilton was asking a measly
>> couple of grand, Lord ?Taylor? was asking many times that. Mind you,
>> he was
>> offering a more significant service.
>>
Couple of grand? I thought it was nearer 40.
Aha - research suggests that no-one really knows with Mr H, as he
continues to deny the affair. However, Tim Smith, who resigned over the
matter, was apparently paid between 18 and 25 grand.
>>
> Four of them at it, it seems, according to the upmarket Murdoch empire
> rag:-
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581570.ece
>
> But they all claimed later to know it was a sting. Naturally.....
>
Of course, three of the four were former MPs - and either ex-junior
ministers or whips. Taylor was a former local politician, all of them
political appointments to the upper chamber, not "proper" peers. And, of
coursse, don't forget the latest peer, our glorious former (booted out)
speaker. What a fine person to be scrutinising the work of teh commons!
JonG
bobharvey
> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all unnecessary
> legislation.
It's a theory of mine that every time they want a new law they should
repeal two others. Any two, needn't be related.
Introduce ASBOs? right then, The Swansea chimmney fires & general
powers act will go, and the law allowing ports to have their own
police farce.
Richard Robinson
No, hang on, we never liked that Human Rights stuff, anyway ...
Ancipital
>> Yeah, that's most assuredly the fing. I remember my law lecturer saying
>> exactly the same with a look of mild irritation on his face. He was
>> right, too, but wasn't able to explain why to either our or his
>> satisfaction.
>
> I tried to have this out with a canvasser some years ago. They kept
> repeating that it wasn't fair to allow unelected people to govern but
> couldn't say how it would be better to have elected old duffers rather
> than appointed old duffers.
>
Elected greedy power-mad abstrads versus a strange ragbag of curious old
sods with plenty of time to discuss things at length, I'd suspect. That
doesn't mean that there aren't any wot are mad, nasty, misguided and so
forth, but it seems like it has a higher chance of coming out in the
wossname.
In any case, they aren't directly comparable, the Lords is the "hold on
a sec", the safety valve. Their wbo is to be a bit stodgy and
slow-moving, mull stuff over, and generally not Run Everything. Seems to
me this doesn't make them as much of a menace as some might claim.
Richard Robinson
The vestigial remains of an ancient menace.
For some reason, this reminds me that a few days ago I heard one of the
Millibands described as "the evil of two lessers".
Ancipital
> For some reason, this reminds me that a few days ago I heard one of the
> Millibands described as "the evil of two lessers".
>
>
Le chuckle, if they weren't about to become irrelevant, that would be
well worth pinching.
Richard Robinson
It was said to have been in use for a while within the "Civil" Service.
Rusty Hinge
> In uk.rec.sheds, (JonG) wrote in
>
>> Rusty Hinge wrote:
>>
>>> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all unnecessary
>>> legislation.
>>
>>
>>> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
>> Amen to that.
>>
>> It should be left alone and not meddled
>>> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>>> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say - but
>>> not before a hell of a struggle.
>>>
>> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
>> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
>> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
>> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
>> democratically-elected house.
>
The proposals or the Upper Crus^h^h^House?
No, the Upper House isn't fair. Nor is life. One of the reasons the
Upper House jbexf is that their lordships (and ladyships) are not paid a
stipend, but an attendance allowance - and not a handsome one either.
Most offem have the interests of the nation at heart. How many MPs can
you say that of?
> As if that's the sole criterion.
>
> I think it's quite good that there are a bunch of people who can take
> the long view, and can't be bullied by deselection.
NuLabor wants to scupper that, with the expedient of 'wrongdoing' as the
trigger.
--
Rusty
bobharvey
Rusty Hinge
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:15:13 +0100
>> Znep <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In uk.rec.sheds, (JonG) wrote in
>>>> Rusty Hinge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all
>>>>> unnecessary legislation.
>>>>> The House of Lords *JBEXF*.
>>>> Amen to that.
>>>>
>>>> It should be left alone and not meddled
>>>>> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
>>>>> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say -
>>>>> but not before a hell of a struggle.
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. On paper, the House of Lords may seem like a ludicrous way
>>>> to run a democracy, but in reality, time and time again through my adult
>>>> life, their Lord- and Ladyships have shown to be far more in touch with
>>>> the general prevailing opinion that our supposedly
>>>> democratically-elected house.
>>> Oh, it jbexf, sure- but is it *fair*?
>> Who cares as long as it jbexf.
>
> The question of "fairness" could be recast as "how _many_ people does it
> jbex for ?" ?
IMO, everyone except fools, dissemblers and the doctrinaire.
--
Rusty
Richard Robinson
> On 5 May, 20:07, Richard Robinson <richa...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Ancipital said:
>>
Harry, are you there ? Knock twice for "no" ?
David Reid
following:
>
>Oh, I believe _you_. I also believe all the other, ooh, baker's dozen or
>so of people on Usenet who say they've voted Liberal, Democrat, Green or
>whatever before and will do so again.
>
>Who I do not believe are the millions upon millions[35] of people who
>have voted LaboServative all their lives[99], have now for the first
>time ever seen someone from a non-ConservAbour party in action, and were
>surprised enough that he appeared human and alive to tell the polling
>agencies that they might vote for him.
Looks like you were right.
>Maybe you will get twice as many _actual_, not just promised, votes as
>you did last time. Given your broken election system, this will probably
>give you about 50% more MPs at most. And the end result will still be
>the Old Firm party in power, and a Thatcherite, Neo-Con government, just
>like the last thirty years.
Although it seems even you were a bit optimistic about the Liberals
chances.
--
David Reid Da...@disarray.org.uk http://www.disarray.org.uk
David's laws of car restoration:
2) If it doesn't fit, bend it.
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
> > Rusty Hinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Richard Bos wrote:
> >>
> >>> (At times, it's almost funny how the idiocy in UK politics is very near
> >>> the opposite of NL political idiocy. Almost.)
> >> You ought not to criticise our idiocies, we hold them very dear. It's
> >> just the price of them we don't want to pay.
> >
> > So, you want New ConservaLabour, but you don't want New ConservaLabour?
>
> I want a government which will spend its time unpicking all unnecessary
> legislation.
So does everybody, including the government. The problem is deciding
which legislation is unnecessary.
> I want it to keep its collective nose out of anything which doesn't
> concern it.
For which the same remark goes as the above.
> It should listen to what other opinions are thrown at it, and allow them
> to influence its actions - though not necessarily positively...
That, I think, is not so much a property of the party, but of the man at
the helm. AFAICT Bliar started out doing this somewhat more than he did
at the end of his reign, and I've heard the same of his mentor,
Thatcher.
> Clause four should apply to all the service industries
I do not know what clause four is, but if you mean that they should be
unprivatised, I can only agree. In which case, you don't want the same
people who privatised them in the first place.
> There should be a publicly-owned airline - if it can survive.
I agree, but good luck with the final clause.
> The House of Lords *JBEXF*. It should be left alone and not meddled
> with. Making it all-elected will give it far too much clout and even
> more self-importance - the Commons should always have the last say - but
> not before a hell of a struggle.
Not so. The House of Lords jbex_RQ_. An all-ex-officio upper house, as
you used to have, jbexf. An all-elected upper house is what we have in
nl (actually, it's slightly more complicated than that, as they're
elected by the provincial states, who in turn are elected by the public,
but in the end, they're elected, not appointed or ex-officio), and
believe you me, it jbexf. On occasion, it has jbexrq most spectacularly,
and with egg all over the government's face. What's more, in all such
cases I can remember, I agreed with them.
What does _not_ jbex is a half-elected, half-appointed upper house,
where most of the members are slaves to the party which gave them their
titles, and have no reason whatsoever to think for themselves and every
reason to toe the party line. And guess what the Tories and New Labour
are eager to do? Right, introduce more Lord Moneybagses.
If you have an upper house that is controlled by nobody, you have a
winner - which used to be the case over your way. If you have an upper
house controlled by the people (preferably indirectly to reduce the
influence of the Madness of the Day, and certainly not at the same time
as the lower house), you have a winner, too - which is the case over
here. If you have a House of Lords controlled by the government's party
whips, you should look elsewhere for sanity.
> Join the Rusty Party and get a place in my cabinet.
Feel free to start the Rusty Party and gather enough votes to get a
seat.
Oh, wait, you can't, because the DR system is against you.
> > You _can't_ vote
> > with your yellow liver without paying the price, and don't tell me that
> > you insist that you want to. You may want to all you want, but unless
> > the British learn to vote with their hearts and minds rather than with
> > their tabloid-induced fear of anything Not New ConservaLabour, you
> > _will_ pay the price, want it or not. And you know it.
>
> Tabloid? Are you inferring that I read tabloids? *AND* that I would be
> influenced by anything written (or pictured) therein?
You personally? No, sir. You as a nation? Damn yes.
> > (Oh, and one more thing, lest this be unclear: I'm not hammering on
> > about this because I like to dislike you Brits. I'm doing so because I
> > _like_ you. If you'd been the Treznaf, I would not have given a
> > fliegender Fick whether you voted in Merkel, Steinmeier, or Kunast. If
> > Orytvnaf, well... to be honest, you'd be up a creek without a paddle
> > anyway, and the only solution would seem a complete revamp of their
> > state betnavfngvba.
>
> This is Preposterous Representation at jbex.
On the contrary, it is exactly because it is now _non_-proportional
_non_- (and over-) representation that it does not jbex.
> In any case, the unspeakable (according to all but Z. Beeblebrox) will
> never be untied as long as Flemings and Walloons love each other as
> much as they do.
Well, you xabj, they used to be one country with one government. And
then some nationalist polly tickians (don't remember which) decided that
this would not do, and split the country into three parts. And to make
the situation even more nicely inflammable, they added the complication
that parties from one part of the country could canvas votes in the
other, but not v.v.
It's much as if there really _were_ devolution between Scotland and
England, where the Scots can vote for the SNP for the Scottish
parliament, and the English can vote for some English party for the
English parliament - but with the joke added that for the _UK_
government, the SNP is allowed to canvas for votes in Berwick, but the
English parties have to keep their paws out of Gretna. You can see why
the Sassenach would not be happy about that. You can also see that it is
neither proportional nor honest representation.
> For (insert politician's name) is an honourable man, so are they all,
> all honourable men.
>
> The noble Richard hath told you (insert politician's name) is ambitious,
> If that were so, it was a greedy fault, and greedily hath (insert
> politician's name) answered it.
>
> I goove the whole play could be 'adapted' thusly, or worsererly.
*Cough* Yes, indeed.
<http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C44bdf094.582969507%40news.xs4all.nl%3E>
> > Now, when someone you like is unhappy with a situation, but his own
> > behavious perpetuates that situation, what should you do? Say "Yes, yes,
> > very nice, very well done, sad about the situation, isn't it"? Or point
> > out that he could have helped himself, had he but had the guts, and in
> > doing so perhaps help him help himself ameliorate the situation in the
> > future? I prefer to choose the latter.)
>
> So would most people, but the practicalities mitigate against it.
So you'd say. Reality proved different. Your people overwhelmingly voted
_for_ the old corruption. True, for once they declined to choose between
the branches of the corruption - but when the numbers are added up,
corruption won again.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos's best pigeon dodged hawks and farmers' guns to bring me the
> >Oh, I believe _you_. I also believe all the other, ooh, baker's dozen or
> >so of people on Usenet who say they've voted Liberal, Democrat, Green or
> >whatever before and will do so again.
> >
> >Who I do not believe are the millions upon millions[35] of people who
> >have voted LaboServative all their lives[99], have now for the first
> >time ever seen someone from a non-ConservAbour party in action, and were
> >surprised enough that he appeared human and alive to tell the polling
> >agencies that they might vote for him.
>
> Looks like you were right.
I'd love to say I was surprised.
> >Maybe you will get twice as many _actual_, not just promised, votes as
> >you did last time. Given your broken election system, this will probably
> >give you about 50% more MPs at most. And the end result will still be
> >the Old Firm party in power, and a Thatcherite, Neo-Con government, just
> >like the last thirty years.
>
> Although it seems even you were a bit optimistic about the Liberals
> chances.
I _was_ rather surprised at that. The Suppression System worked even
better than I expected.
On which subject, I thought Clegg would have done better to just let the
Tories rule on their own, since he's never going to get anything of what
he's been promised - referendum my nefr, it'll be doctored to give the
answer the Tories want regardless of what the voters actually say. But
I'm willing to be surprised on that point, as well.
Richard
bobharvey
> While offering no criticism of either viewpoint, might I just remark how
> different it is from Ye Shedde of Yore to find such controversial
> subjects explored here at length.
We could go back to ash cloud news. A busy little contributor on our
local bulletinboard refers to the volcano as 'Ikea Fuddle Yokel',
which is at least pronounceable.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
> So does everybody, including the government. The problem is deciding
> which legislation is unnecessary.
Toss it all out and then add as deemed necessary.
> > I want it to keep its collective nose out of anything which doesn't
> > concern it.
>
> For which the same remark goes as the above.
Same approach.
But I want to be elsewhere when this happens.
nend...@gmail.com
> An appropriate time to post this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>
> --
> Graham.
>
> %Profound_observation%
can I join the club???
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
<nend...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:052858f1-240b-4aff...@googlegroups.com...
David Reid
year old thread?
It was a silly question really wasn't it?
I speak better English than this villain Bush
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf
John Williamson
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
> nend...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:00:43 PM UTC+7, Graham. wrote:
>>> An appropriate time to post this.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>>>
>>> --
>>> Graham.
>>>
>>> %Profound_observation%
>> can I join the club???
>
> Does Google Gropes not give a warning if you try to follow up a three
> year old thread?
>
> It was a silly question really wasn't it?
>
The oldest thread I've seen followed up was from 2002, and the folow-up
post was pink stuff.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Nicholas D. Richards
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> on Thu, 25 Jul 2013 at 21:34:26 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
wonder how far back I can get on this server.
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"O� sont les neiges d'antan?"
Graham.
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
>nend...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:00:43 PM UTC+7, Graham. wrote:
>> > An appropriate time to post this.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>> >
>> > --
>> > Graham.
>> >
>> > %Profound_observation%
>>
>> can I join the club???
>
>Does Google Gropes not give a warning if you try to follow up a three
>year old thread?
>
>It was a silly question really wasn't it?
teeth and a little more hair than I do now.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
fretp...@gmail.com
> An appropriate time to post this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>
> --
> Graham.
>
> %Profound_observation%
Let me tell all of you how happy I am that you all came through
this ordeal.
To the pilots, words can't come to mind. Unbelievable composure and professionalism. Heroes in my book.
That goes for the rest of crew too.
I had just finished watching an episode where there was a mid air crash
between a Russian plane filled with children and a DHL freight plane. Very sad. The first one I shed tears for the victims, but with yours it was tears of
thankfulness that all came out okay.
Good job to you all.
TMack
three and a half years ago?
--
Tony
'09 FJR1300, '87 TW200,
89 TW200, '07 Street Triple OMF#24
Robert Harvey
> Are you aware that you are replying to a post that was originally made
> three and a half years ago?