On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:25:34 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 30/08/11 15:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:53:09 +0100
"Tim wrote:
Bottlar, let me give you a little information. Ian isn't a student.

Well thats how he comes across so what does that say about him?

That I get misunderstood by clueless bigots?

Oh dear, you can't even think up your own insults now.

Also you forgot to repeat it 4 times just for effect then skweam and skweam
until you're sick.

B2003

On Aug 30, 11:30*am, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:06*pm, Dave Jackson wrote: On 29/08/2011 12:21, Tim Fenton wrote:

flannelled fool

Neddie Seagoon, IIRC. He wanted to buy a penguin...

Must dig out the mp3 player which holds my Goon collection - certainly
be more entertaining than this thread.

There is always something distasteful about off-topic threads that
exist merely to criticize individuals. *They have no place in uk.r, et
al. *Several months back Whitehead started one in order to belittle
Alan Tracy. *Doing so said much more about Whitehead than Mr. Tracy.

Ah yes, I remember that well, Mr "Auer"-Hudson. Our dear old friend
Mr Tracy had posted the view that the massacre in Cumbria by Derrick
Bird was all the fault of Gordon Brown. Something to do with the fact
that Gordon Brown had increased taxes to the point that Derrick Bird
couldn't pay them and, um, went and murdered loads of people. On
reflection, it was a perfectly valid and reasonable stance, and I
really shouldn't have intimated that Mr Tracy was a loon for saying
it. Just as I shouldn't intimate that you are a loon, Mr "Auer"-Hudson

On 30/08/11 15:34, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:25:34 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 30/08/11 15:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:53:09 +0100
"Tim wrote:
Bottlar, let me give you a little information. Ian isn't a student.

Well thats how he comes across so what does that say about him?

That I get misunderstood by clueless bigots?

Oh dear, you can't even think up your own insults now.

That's the joke.

Ian

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:42:29 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
That I get misunderstood by clueless bigots?

Oh dear, you can't even think up your own insults now.

That's the joke.

No, you're the joke.

B2003

On 30/08/11 16:05, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:42:29 +0100
The Real wrote:
That I get misunderstood by clueless bigots?

Oh dear, you can't even think up your own insults now.

That's the joke.

No, you're the joke.

Oscar? Oscar Wilde? Is that you?

Ian

In article , d
wrote:

... Even new
zealand
lamb is seasonal.

A few years ago I discovered that apples aren't, at least not in the way
you'd expect. In a supermarket in late September there were no British
apples to be seen - every one on display was from the southern
hemisphere.

Sam

On 30/08/2011 14:51, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:18:06 +0100
Graeme wrote:
No problem getting wheat, potatoes or whatever from Guatamala or even
further afield. We used to get wheat from Argentina for instance and
that was before the container revolution. Milk can easily be sourced
from Eastern Europe for instance and lamb doesn't have to come from New
Zealand, again Argentina can supply.

Eastern europe barely produces enough for itself these days and if the whole of
the EU suddenly sourced ALL its food from abroad , even assuming there was
enough spare, what do you think that would do to global prices? Suddenly that
lamb from argentina won't be available cheaper than local produce.

Nobody mentioned the EU, just Tescos.


As has been pointed out, the expensive bit of transporting goods is the
last few miles to the shops, getting it from the other side of the world
to Southampton or Felixstowe costs peanuts so British producers have no
advantage there.

See above.

The above doesn't address the issue.


Incidentally not being a trendy lefty like you, what are mung beans anyway?

A disgusting legume only fit for trendies and animal feed.


I'll leave them to you then.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Aug 30, 9:47*am, Bol-tard wrote:

So the actual results distort the picture? You mean they don't suit your
argument so you choose to ignore them.

I wasn't putting forward an argument; I was just stating a pertinent
fact. And if I decide to comment on something, then how am I ignoring
it?

Are you denying that the amount of blue on the map is disproportionate
to the number of seats won by the Tories? Why do you think they
sometimes show a derivative of that map with all the constituencies
represented by hexagons of equal size? It's so that the colours are in
proportion to seats won. The modified version always looks far less
blue than the original, I assure you.

Also, were you suggesting that a clear lead for Labour in the polls
over the past several months is something that the Tories are happy
about?

Are you a character out of a george orwell (sic) novel or something?


"George Orwell". Proper nouns are capitalised. They teach you that in
primary school.

On Aug 30, 11:37*am, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:22*pm, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:
That's because the Tories tend to do well in the affluent countryside
constituencies that cover the largest geographical areas. Even in the
event of a Labour landslide, those maps would still look pretty blue.

The countryside: That would be farms. *Farmers are the folks who work
long hours to put food on your table. *They are common sense people.
They vote Conservative because they have worked very hard for what
they have.


Are you saying that the Labour Party's core voters - the working class
- don't work hard? There's a clue in the name.

As to what causes people to vote Conservative, mainly it's the
combination of being both well-off and selfish: "I'm all right, Jack".
Then there are the xenophobes and bigots, if they haven't switched to
voting UKIP or BNP. And some people are just plain clueless or too
young to remember the Thatcher years.

Do you have a problem with that?


Nowhere in the post you replied to did I even suggest I had a problem
with anything.

Nock the countryside if you wish. *You are biting the hand that feeds you.


You are reading words that I did not write. I would never "nock" the
countryside and neither would I knock it. I was brought up in the
countryside, for flip sake.

On 30/08/11 09:47, d wrote:
So the actual results distort the picture? You mean they don't suit your
argument so you choose to ignore them. Are you a character out of a george
orwell novel or something?

If you want to say something about numbers of people supporting each
party then yes, an area-based depiction is grossly misleading.

Ian