Am 04.01.2012 12:28, schrieb Paul Rigg:

I am quite sure that Friedrichstraße was the only East Berlin S-Bahn
station where one could buy S-Bahn tickets towards West Berlin in DM.
And only in the "non-socialist currency" area, i.e. the area which acted
as an exchange station for intra West Berlin traffic.

I saw them on the machine at Kopenick.

Before November 1989? I'm astonished.


Cheers,
L.W.

In message , at 12:14:27 on
Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Lüko Willms remarked:
Most of the fall in costs has been due to competition, and facilitated
by new technology. Where there's no competition, the new technology is
still expensive.

Nonsense.

I refer the Hon Gent to remarks made about international roaming charges
(as just one example).
--
Roland Perry

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 04.01.2012 12:17, schrieb Recliner:
No, that was again this Mr. Recliner (or who ever) who claimed
that
once there is only one owner of a company, that turns this company
into a monopoly which is to be fought.

I know that English is not your native tongue, so perhaps you're
confused by the English language terms "ownership" and "monopoly".
The ownership of a company has nothing to do with whether it's a
monopoly.

Correct. But YOU wrote that a single owner turns a company into a
monopoly:

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted
in the EU and other free capitalist countries.

I welcome you retraction of that nonsense, but you should not deny
that you wrote it.


There's nothing to retract or deny, and please don't keep insulting me
when I'm trying hard to be polite to you. As certain other posters in
this newsgroup should have realised by now, habitual rudeness diminishes
the people who deliver the insults, *not* the people they insult. Again,
I'll give your lack of English knowledge the benefit of the doubt, but I
invite you again to take account of the words "and [if] that shareholder
has other interests, then you have a potential conflict of interest".

To explain that in simpler words, if one shareholder gets effective
boardroom control of a company by having more than (say) 40% of the
shares, then a potential monopoly would exist *if* that same shareholder
also controls other companies in the same industry; it would be
unimportant if the shareholder has no significant interests in competing
companies.

If those companies collectively controlled more than, say, 40% of the
market, then they would be able to set prices, etc, all under the
control of the monopoly shareholder. As I keep trying to explain
politely to you, the level of shareholding in a single company doesn't
tell you anything about whether it's a monopoly. It's the presence or
absence of effective competition that matters. So it's fine if small
businesses in a competitive market are owned by a single family, and
no-one but you would suggest that they had a monopoly.

So the fact that DB has a single shareholder doesn't make it a monopoly;
the lack of strong competition in Germany means it has a German
monopoly. Its UK subsidiaries also have a single shareholder, in the
form of the German government, but they don't have a monopoly here. Is
that clear now?

Now please will you answer my question about workers rights in the two
Koreas?

On 04/01/2012 09:57, Comrade Willms wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 18:56, schrieb Graham Nye:

Why would Recliner want to deny writing that?

I don't care for the motives, only for the facts: he did deny it.

It's an entirely reasonable thing to have written in its context,
which was discussion of a state-owned railway company.

I have the opposite opinion thinking that it is absolutely
ridiculous. As you might have noted.

I note that you've asserted your view that having a state government take
over 100% of the ownership of a company doesn't change the nature of that
company. I've further noted you wriggling out of all attempts to engage
you in substantive discussion of that view.

It is you who has sought to move the goal posts by introducing discussion
of one-person owned businesses,

No, ...

Yes, in message-id
dated Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:42:23 +0100

...presumably so you can wriggle out of
answering Recliner's question to you: "Do you think workers' rights are
better protected in North than in South Korea?"

Did he write that? I don't know,

Yes he did. You should know that because he wrote that in the message
you replied to with the message-id already given above. More evasion
from you.

... but this is obviously far off topic
from the issues we are discussing.

It's OK then for you to give your thoughts on German state ownership in two
UK newsgroups but all of a sudden it becomes off-topic? Questions becoming
too awkward for you?

Or do you have a problem with the
Thought Police working for the Ministry of Truth, so that you have to
prove to be a good fink denouncing all possible thought crimes?

The Thought Police are obviously close to your mind, as you've mentioned
them twice this morning.

I note you have again evaded answering the question posed to you.
So, third time lucky, do you think workers' rights are better protected
in North than in South Korea?


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On 04/01/2012 10:01, Lüko Willms wrote:
Under capitalist rule, you will find that most state owned
enterprises are actually operated with the objective to make profit.

I haven't found that. In the UK under Conservative governments (1979-97)
state owned enterprises were sold back into private ownership to make a
profit, not retained and operated by the state.

--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On 04/01/2012 10:02, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 22:42, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
Do you also care about the color of the skin of the shareholdes, their
religion, their sexual orientation, their preferred sports?

The religious views of a shareholder in one UK-based transport group
attracted some public interest in the not too distant past.

Tell me more. I don't anything about this.



I thought it was his views on others' sexual orientation that attracted
the interest. However those views may well have been influenced by his
religious affiliations.


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

On 04/01/2012 10:24, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 19:44, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
Lüko wrote in
:

But it was not the Allied occupation forces which demanded that the
GDR close the Wall completly, but the West German and West Berlin
authorities.

I don't think they did anything like that.

Sure they did. Your memory is obviously ruled by your fear of the
Thought Police...

[snip more marxist fantasies]

Is your indoctrination so deeply ingrained in your grey cells?

Or do you just fear the Thought Police that they might put you in Room 101?


Lüko, you are aware that 1984 was fiction?

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

On 04/01/2012 11:52, Lüko Willms wrote:
In reality, if BT was not forced to operate as a profit oriented
commercial company, maintaining its position as the the British telecoms
operator, it would have lowered the prices according to the
technological advances. Deutsche Bundespost did in its times.

In reality it didn't, quite the contrary.

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

Before November 1989? I'm astonished.

Definitely. It was about August 1989. No sign of wall coming down at all.
They had DDR 40 in lights on a property in Alexanderplatz. Hard to believe
now that it never got much further!
Went up the funkturm as well- quite a good meal in the telecafe for £5. At
that time of course the West Berlin S Bahn was being operated by the BVB
(BVG) in West Berlin, at least those parts of it which were open.

The S Bahn trains on the Stadtbahn changed crew at Lehrter Stadtbahnhof, a
DR driver noticeably taking over from the BVB one for the short run into
Friedrichstrasse,

I don't think any such change occurred on the North Sud bahn at the time,

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:25:48 +0100 [UTC], Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 04.01.2012 11:20, schrieb ian batten:
On Jan 4, 9:50 am, Lüko wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 18:57, schrieb ian batten:

As Lenin already said: it is very difficult to find a honest opponent
in the debate.
He also said "Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer
than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers."

When and where?

11 August 1918. For the full text of the telegram, see http://goo.gl/XOzhq
or http://goo.gl/lTyYP. The full text is, if anything, worse.

Give correct URLs, please.

Those URLs work. Why demand full URLs rather than use the working
short versions provided?
It only makes you appear to be unwilling to accept that anything you
disagree with could possibly be true.


"It is necessary — secretly and urgently to prepare the terror. And on
Tuesday we will decide whether it will be through SNK or otherwise."

30 August 1918. See The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the
West (1999) Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, p. 34.

Secondary source. Do you not have something more reliable?

As above. Despite your protests (snipped), you're still only making
yourself look unwilling to accept that anything you disagree with
could possibly be true.
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...