1506 and Boltar
 

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.

MIG is showing immaturity in starting this thread. But, he is young
yet. MIG is a Timmy Ton writ small. What, you may ask, is the
problem with Timmy Ton? At personal level he questions my heritage.
In my particular case said heritage is passed on thru the female
line. To question it is to be offensive towards my mother. No man
should stand by and allow his mother to be insulted. I responded in
kind. Timmy did not stand up for his mother.

Timmy also has no problem with military rockets being fired into
primary schools and folk's homes. At least he takes a dim view of the
appropriate response. That is the height of callousness. Children
should always be protected. And few material possessions are more
precious than one's home. They represent years of hard work.

Apart from that he stands for all that is low, vulgar, indecent, and
offensive. A good two thirds of this list could be applied to
Timmy;
http://tinyurl.com/445f8gf

You will understand why I dislike the creature.

Oh, and like you, I miss the Goons. Must stop by the BBC shop
sometime.

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 28, 8:39*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 28/08/11 04:35, Tom Nicholls wrote:

For me, it's less about politics and more about civility.

I don't think these nutcases even have much political importance. Sure,
they make a lot of noise on the comments pages of the Telegraph, Mail,
BBC (Speak You're Branes) and so on, but if they vote at all it will
almost certainly be for the lunatic fringe: UKIP, BNP etc.

My own infallible test for wackjobs is the use of "so-called": as soon
as you see references to "so-called experts" or the "so-call Human
Rights Act" you know that the author has significant problems with reality.

Another infallible test, in my experience, is to see whether they
believe in the literal truth of words written by bronze-age desert
tribesmen over the findings of modern science aka religious
fundamentalism. I've yet to meet anyone falling into that category
who has anything to say that's worth listening to. Mr "Auer"-Hudson
is the living embodiment of that principle.

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
Bloatar, who has made himself look a dick on every newsgroup he posts
to. Why would it bother you what a pair of loons say about you?

Haven't you got any pointless patent litigation to tie up the courts with
you could be getting on with Mr Lefty Solicitor?

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 29, 8:22*pm, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:09*pm, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT)

Tom wrote:
limits. *There's a graph around the net of the Tory share of the vote
since the war and it's clearly declining, which possible explains why

Really? Hmm, thats odd:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/el...ml/england.stm

Looks pretty blue to me in england. (sic)

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. Do you have a problem with that?

The Countryside is also home to countless small businesses. These
people work hard and do not rely on government hand outs. They do pay
ample taxes and collect VAT.

The countryside of the home counties is home to myriad commuters who
buy expensive tickets in order to commute to London and do real work.
Without their effort and taxes London's welfare insanity would not
exist.

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

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 11:35*am, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)

BrianW wrote:
Bloatar, who has made himself look a dick on every newsgroup he posts
to. *Why would it bother you what a pair of loons say about you?

Haven't you got any pointless patent litigation to tie up the courts with
you could be getting on with Mr Lefty Solicitor?

Yes, thanks.

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 11:37, 1506 wrote:
The countryside: That would be farms. Farmers are the folks who work
long hours to put food on your table.

And survive on handouts from Brussels.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:35=A0am, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)

BrianW wrote:
Bloatar, who has made himself look a dick on every newsgroup he posts
to. =A0Why would it bother you what a pair of loons say about you?

Haven't you got any pointless patent litigation to tie up the courts with
you could be getting on with Mr Lefty Solicitor?

Yes, thanks.

Good, so eff off and get on with it.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 11:37*am, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:22*pm, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:





On Aug 29, 8:09*pm, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT)

Tom wrote:
limits. *There's a graph around the net of the Tory share of the vote
since the war and it's clearly declining, which possible explains why

Really? Hmm, thats odd:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/el...ml/england.stm

Looks pretty blue to me in england. (sic)

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. *Do you have a problem with that?

The Countryside is also home to countless small businesses. *These
people work hard and do not rely on government hand outs. *They do pay
ample taxes and collect VAT.

The countryside of the home counties is home to myriad commuters who
buy expensive tickets in order to commute to London and do real work.
Without their effort and taxes London's welfare insanity would not
exist.

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

He's not knocking the countryside. He's just pointing out that rural
areas have lower population densities, and are therefore larger
(sometimes considerably larger) than urban constituencies. Therefore,
the map can look blue, even though a majority of people can still be
voting red (albeit not at the last election).

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:42:03 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:37, 1506 wrote:
The countryside: That would be farms. Farmers are the folks who work
long hours to put food on your table.

And survive on handouts from Brussels.

Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 11:45*am, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)

BrianW wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:35=A0am, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)

BrianW wrote:
Bloatar, who has made himself look a dick on every newsgroup he posts
to. =A0Why would it bother you what a pair of loons say about you?

Haven't you got any pointless patent litigation to tie up the courts with
you could be getting on with Mr Lefty Solicitor?

Yes, thanks.

Good, so eff off and get on with it.

OK.

Incidentally, I like the insinuation that commercial solicitors (as
opposed, say, to human rights lawyers) are likely to be lefties. Met
many?

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 11:48, d wrote:
Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 11:49, BrianW wrote:
Incidentally, I like the insinuation that commercial solicitors (as
opposed, say, to human rights lawyers) are likely to be lefties. Met
many?

It would appear that to our friend Boltar. almost /everybody/ is a
lefty. This may be true.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 11:56*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:49, BrianW wrote:

Incidentally, I like the insinuation that commercial solicitors (as
opposed, say, to human rights lawyers) are likely to be lefties. *Met
many?

It would appear that to our friend Boltar. almost /everybody/ is a
lefty. This may be true.

Indeed. From my own experience, I wouldn't say that commercial
lawyers are exactly the most left-wing bunch of people you'd ever
meet. No doubt, though, Bloatar knows much better.

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
Incidentally, I like the insinuation that commercial solicitors (as
opposed, say, to human rights lawyers) are likely to be lefties. Met
many?

I wasn't refering to your entire profession, just you.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, d wrote:
Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics
you muppet.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 12:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real wrote:

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics

So is paying what the market will stand.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 12:06, d wrote:

I wasn't refering to your entire profession, just you.

"referring". Double 'r'.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/2011 12:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, d wrote:
Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics
you muppet.


Discovering it is not a bluff and Tescos can source from elsewhere
without a trace of panic is also free market economics.

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

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:14:34 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 30/08/11 12:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real wrote:

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics

So is paying what the market will stand.

There is no proper market if there's a guaranteed subsidy.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:19:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2011 12:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, d wrote:
Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics
you muppet.


Discovering it is not a bluff and Tescos can source from elsewhere
without a trace of panic is also free market economics.

True, but its unlikely to happen. If brussels dropped its subsidies for all
european farmers the supermarkets would have no choice to pay the proper
price and the consumer would be no worse off - in theory - since what he loses
in higher food prices he gains in lower taxes. Or at least thats how it would
work if Brussels were an honest open institution and not a bunch of lazy
money grabbing incompetents.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 12:06*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:49:05 -0700 (PDT)

BrianW wrote:
Incidentally, I like the insinuation that commercial solicitors (as
opposed, say, to human rights lawyers) are likely to be lefties. *Met
many?

I wasn't refering to your entire profession, just you.

Fair enough. Although I'm not sure why you think I'm a lefty/

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/2011 12:42, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:19:05 +0100
Graeme wrote:
On 30/08/2011 12:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:55:38 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, d wrote:
Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce.
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Withholding goods until you can get a better price IS free market econonics
you muppet.


Discovering it is not a bluff and Tescos can source from elsewhere
without a trace of panic is also free market economics.

True, but its unlikely to happen. If brussels dropped its subsidies for all
european farmers the supermarkets would have no choice to pay the proper
price and the consumer would be no worse off - in theory - since what he loses
in higher food prices he gains in lower taxes. Or at least thats how it would
work if Brussels were an honest open institution and not a bunch of lazy
money grabbing incompetents.


Have you been in a supermarket lately and seen where they source their
fresh produce from?

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

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:36:36 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
True, but its unlikely to happen. If brussels dropped its subsidies for all
european farmers the supermarkets would have no choice to pay the proper
price and the consumer would be no worse off - in theory - since what he
loses
in higher food prices he gains in lower taxes. Or at least thats how it would
work if Brussels were an honest open institution and not a bunch of lazy
money grabbing incompetents.


Have you been in a supermarket lately and seen where they source their
fresh produce from?

I'm talking about staple foods , not mung beans or couscous or whatever. They
can't get all their milk, wheat, potatoes etc from guatamala. Even new zealand
lamb is seasonal.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/2011 13:44, d wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:36:36 +0100
Graeme wrote:
True, but its unlikely to happen. If brussels dropped its subsidies for all
european farmers the supermarkets would have no choice to pay the proper
price and the consumer would be no worse off - in theory - since what he
loses
in higher food prices he gains in lower taxes. Or at least thats how it would
work if Brussels were an honest open institution and not a bunch of lazy
money grabbing incompetents.


Have you been in a supermarket lately and seen where they source their
fresh produce from?

I'm talking about staple foods , not mung beans or couscous or whatever. They
can't get all their milk, wheat, potatoes etc from guatamala. Even new zealand
lamb is seasonal.


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.

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.

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

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

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 30, 11:55*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, wrote:

Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce..
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as they
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Hilarious, isn't it, how even the most rabid right-wingers can
suddenly go all lefty when the nasty realities of life intrude upon
their own pet concerns?

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:18:06 +0100
Graeme Wall 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.

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.

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

A disgusting legume only fit for trendies and animal feed.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:55=A0am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 30/08/11 11:48, wrote:

Because supermarkets won't pay them the real value of what they produce=
..
The farmers should call their bluff - then watch Tesco et al panic as t=
hey
try and source basic commodities for the entire country from abroad.

What have you got against the free market, comrade?

Hilarious, isn't it, how even the most rabid right-wingers can
suddenly go all lefty when the nasty realities of life intrude upon
their own pet concerns?

Why? I have right wing social views but centre left economic views. I think
you'll find a lot of people fit that description. Many are the other way
around. If my attitude was f*ck everyone else, I just care about money
why would I give a toss about immigration or the effect it has?

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:53:09 +0100
"Tim Fenton" 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?

No, he sounds like he's enjoying himself immensely at the expense of a
clueless bigot who has difficulty expressing himself in written English.

"clueless bigot"? Is that really the best you can come up with after all this
time? Do try harder old chap. Water off a ducks back etc etc.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 30/08/11 14:50, BrianW wrote:

Hilarious, isn't it, how even the most rabid right-wingers can
suddenly go all lefty when the nasty realities of life intrude upon
their own pet concerns?

Oh yes indeed.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

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?

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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

1506 and Boltar
 

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.

1506 and Boltar
 

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.

1506 and Boltar
 

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