In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
You may debate it as much as you like, I can remember when Trident was
being negotiated with the Merkins to replace Polaris, and it was sold to
us as being a steal at HALF PRICE, and hidden away in smaller print,
(the sort of thing that Newsnight picks up) was the Merkins had right of
veto.

So "you remember" the "small print" ... Care to quote a source where the
rest of us can read it?
I was pointing out that Trident was being trumpeted as a major coup,
getting Trident at half price, however both the papers and news media
reported the bits that government spin didn't, that we didn't have real
control. It was a figure of speech. I don't ask you to believe it,
be gullible if you want.
--
Clive.

In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I was pointing out that Trident was being trumpeted as a major coup,
getting Trident at half price, however both the papers and news media
reported the bits that government spin didn't, that we didn't have real
control. It was a figure of speech.

No supporting documentation provided, claim fails ...

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
No supporting documentation provided, claim fails ...

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you .
I don't know whether it's me or you, but what I have claimed is what I
have read (or heard) I tried to avoid saying it was hard fact as it is
most probably unprovable, I don't believe this government to be any more
honest than any other especially when it comes to accounting what they
have done with our money. I think the best plan is for me to state
what I think as my opinion and for you to do likewise, maintaining the
status quo.
--
Clive.

On 25 Feb 2007 12:53:28 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you ...

Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

In uk.railway asdf twisted the electrons to say:
Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

I depend on my local bike shop for the supply of spare parts for my
bicycle. According to your logic, I don't have independent travel
facilities since the use of my bicycle is controlled by said local bike
shop.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 26 Feb 2007 14:53:06 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

I depend on my local bike shop for the supply of spare parts for my
bicycle.

If you "depend" on the bike shop, then you are not independent of the
bike shop.

According to your logic, I don't have independent travel
facilities since the use of my bicycle is controlled by said local bike
shop.

It's important to bear in mind what it's being said to be independent
*of*.

When travel facilities are referred to as independent, it's normally
meant that their day-to-day use is independent of the permission or
aid of other people. It doesn't mean they're independent of absolutely
everything (occasional need for servicing or spare parts, your health,
the existence of roads, the availability of breatheable oxygen, etc).

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, asdf wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 12:53:28 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you ...

Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could correctly
say that "A is closer to independence than B").

What? No. Idiotic.

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.