1506 and Boltar
 

On 31/08/2011 11:31, 1506 wrote:

the UK would still have a World Class Aircract Industry,

Is that something to do with the Comet's windows?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

1506 and Boltar
 

On 31/08/2011 17:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

... And I'm afraid
that I find Conservative attitudes completely incompatible with my
understanding of Christianity.

I don't usually like joining in this kind of thread, but let me add an
AOL here.

One is about clinging to old ideas and prolonged resistance to change,
while the other is a range of political philosophies?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

1506 and Boltar
 

On Aug 31, 5:51*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
Whereas Mr "Auer"-Hudson is an intelligent loon, Bloatar is just a
retard. *One ought to feel sorry for him, really.

When you look this gormless in a photo pal its best not to cast aspersions:

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/node/54249

Or was that your best Frank Spencer face?

I don't think he looks that odd. *

Oh, I do. I liked Adrian's description of me as "Mr Bean". When the
pic was taken, I told my mrs I thought I looked like a cross between
Frankenstein's monster and Shrek, so Mr Bean is quite an improvement.

I'm very uppset, though, that Adrian insinuated that I look like Ed
Miliband. Now that *is* offensive.

1506 and Boltar
 

In uk.railway Sam Wilson twisted the electrons to say:
In article
,
Nick wrote:
... And I'm afraid
that I find Conservative attitudes completely incompatible with my
understanding of Christianity.
I don't usually like joining in this kind of thread, but let me add an
AOL here.

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

1506 and Boltar
 

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:51:59 +0100
Sam Wilson wrote:
I don't think he looks that odd. Can we have one of you to compare it
with - it seems only fair.

There has never been a photo of me online and there never will be. Privacy
is something you can only give away once.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 31/08/11 09:55, d wrote:

Its only people desperate to score a point no matter what who resort
to commenting on typos. If there isn't some usenet law about that then
there should be. It doesn't make you look clever - just rather petty and
sad.

Not at all. It's simply a bit more evidence that you are a rather stupid
and poorly-educated chap, whose views can be discounted as those of a
rather stupid and poorly-educated chap.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 31/08/11 11:31, 1506 wrote:
Some of us choose to vote Conservative, no one causes us to do so.

But you live in California, don't you?

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 31/08/11 11:34, 1506 wrote:
No poor man ever gave me a job. Taxing the job creators will not help
turn the western economies around.

And their clients - the people who paid you - were all rich too, were the?

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sep 1, 8:42*am, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Sam Wilson twisted the electrons to say:

In article
,
*Nick wrote:
... And I'm afraid
that I find Conservative attitudes completely incompatible with my
understanding of Christianity.
I don't usually like joining in this kind of thread, but let me add an
AOL here.

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

It would seem to me dangerously irresponsible to run a health service,
or a welfare system, on the hope that random members of the general
public will contribute funds to it out of the goodness of their heart.
I mean, those members of the public who have a social conscience and
are relatively well-off probably would, but you can't rely on it.
State funding through taxes means you compel people who can afford it
into giving money to support the health service and welfare, and to my
mind, that's the way it should be if you want to guarantee the income
as much as practically possible.

If you don't like paying tax, remind yourself that you might find
yourself in a position where you will be the beneficiary of the tax
system one day.

Nick

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/2011 00:48, Nick wrote:
On Sep 1, 8:42 am, Alistair wrote:
In uk.railway Sam Wilson twisted the electrons to say:

In article
,
wrote:
... And I'm afraid
that I find Conservative attitudes completely incompatible with my
understanding of Christianity.
I don't usually like joining in this kind of thread, but let me add an
AOL here.

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

It would seem to me dangerously irresponsible to run a health service,
or a welfare system, on the hope that random members of the general
public will contribute funds to it out of the goodness of their heart.
I mean, those members of the public who have a social conscience and
are relatively well-off probably would, but you can't rely on it.
State funding through taxes means you compel people who can afford it
into giving money to support the health service and welfare, and to my
mind, that's the way it should be if you want to guarantee the income
as much as practically possible.

Although there are others ways of organising health care than the way we
do it. For some reason we look at only a 1950s dream of the NHS or a
stereotyped view of the USA. We never ask whether Continental European
streets are actually full of dying babies as a result of not doing
things just like the NHS does.




--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

1506 and Boltar
 

On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:37:50 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 31/08/11 09:55, d wrote:

Its only people desperate to score a point no matter what who resort
to commenting on typos. If there isn't some usenet law about that then
there should be. It doesn't make you look clever - just rather petty and
sad.

Not at all. It's simply a bit more evidence that you are a rather stupid
and poorly-educated chap, whose views can be discounted as those of a
rather stupid and poorly-educated chap.

Or alternatively I'm quite busy at work, my newsreader doesn't have a
built in spell checker and I've got better things to do than proof read
posts to keep tedious pedants like you happy.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/11 09:43, d wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:37:50 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 31/08/11 09:55, d wrote:

Its only people desperate to score a point no matter what who resort
to commenting on typos. If there isn't some usenet law about that then
there should be. It doesn't make you look clever - just rather petty and
sad.

Not at all. It's simply a bit more evidence that you are a rather stupid
and poorly-educated chap, whose views can be discounted as those of a
rather stupid and poorly-educated chap.

Or alternatively I'm quite busy at work, my newsreader doesn't have a
built in spell checker and I've got better things to do than proof read
posts to keep tedious pedants like you happy.

It's a possibility, I suppose, but since your arguments and factual
knowledge are as atrocious as your spelling and grammar, I'll trust
Occam's Razor and go with "rather stupid and poorly-educated" as the
simplest and therefore most likely hypothesis.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:48:42 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
Or alternatively I'm quite busy at work, my newsreader doesn't have a
built in spell checker and I've got better things to do than proof read
posts to keep tedious pedants like you happy.

It's a possibility, I suppose, but since your arguments and factual
knowledge are as atrocious as your spelling and grammar, I'll trust
Occam's Razor and go with "rather stupid and poorly-educated" as the
simplest and therefore most likely hypothesis.

Whatever makes you feel superior.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/11 10:00, d wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:48:42 +0100

It's a possibility, I suppose, but since your arguments and factual
knowledge are as atrocious as your spelling and grammar, I'll trust
Occam's Razor and go with "rather stupid and poorly-educated" as the
simplest and therefore most likely hypothesis.

Whatever makes you feel superior.

That'll be your spelling, grammar, knowledge and arguments.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:35:25 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 02/09/11 10:00, d wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:48:42 +0100

It's a possibility, I suppose, but since your arguments and factual
knowledge are as atrocious as your spelling and grammar, I'll trust
Occam's Razor and go with "rather stupid and poorly-educated" as the
simplest and therefore most likely hypothesis.

Whatever makes you feel superior.

That'll be your spelling, grammar, knowledge and arguments.

You think you're such a clever little **** don't you? This despite the fact
that you hardly ever put forward any justifications for your own arguments,
just try and shoot other peoples down and when that doesn't work resort to
childish name calling and sarcasm.

And just out of interest , what exactly are you a "Real" doctor of? I suspect
it isn't medicine since you'd be far to busy to post on here during the day.

B2003

1506 and Boltar
 

In article
,
BrianW wrote:

On Aug 31, 5:51*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
BrianW wrote:
Whereas Mr "Auer"-Hudson is an intelligent loon, Bloatar is just a
retard. *One ought to feel sorry for him, really.

When you look this gormless in a photo pal its best not to cast
aspersions:

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/node/54249

Or was that your best Frank Spencer face?

I don't think he looks that odd. *

Oh, I do. I liked Adrian's description of me as "Mr Bean". When the
pic was taken, I told my mrs I thought I looked like a cross between
Frankenstein's monster and Shrek, so Mr Bean is quite an improvement.

Let me just that say that there are a lot of other people who just as
odd, and many are are a darn sight odder.

I'm very uppset, though, that Adrian insinuated that I look like Ed
Miliband. Now that *is* offensive.

Absolutely. Now if Clegg wore glasses...

Sam

1506 and Boltar
 

In article ,
Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway Sam Wilson twisted the electrons to say:
In article
,
Nick wrote:
... And I'm afraid
that I find Conservative attitudes completely incompatible with my
understanding of Christianity.
I don't usually like joining in this kind of thread, but let me add an
AOL here.

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?

"Love your enemies."

Sam

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/11 18:21, Tim Fenton wrote:
In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit
of being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has
had considerable difficulty accepting.

Good grief.

He also claims to be Jewish, but believes in Jesus Christ (or, as he
would say, Yeshua).

Sensible way to hedge your bets, I suppose.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/11 18:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
Alistair wrote:

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?

"Love your enemies."

Evangelicals /hate/ that long-haired hippy stuff, which is why they tend
to be very light indeed on the teachings of Jesus and very heavy on the
rantings of Paul. The first thing the evangelicals would do if Jesus
came back - once his identity was incontrovertibly established - would
be to put him to death, then claim he came back and told them to carry
on hating.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

In article ,
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 02/09/11 18:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
Alistair wrote:

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?

"Love your enemies."

Evangelicals /hate/ that long-haired hippy stuff, which is why they tend
to be very light indeed on the teachings of Jesus and very heavy on the
rantings of Paul. The first thing the evangelicals would do if Jesus
came back - once his identity was incontrovertibly established - would
be to put him to death, then claim he came back and told them to carry
on hating.

Not my experience, sorry.

Sam

1506 and Boltar
 

On 02/09/11 20:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
The Real wrote:

On 02/09/11 18:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
Alistair wrote:

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?

"Love your enemies."

Evangelicals /hate/ that long-haired hippy stuff, which is why they tend
to be very light indeed on the teachings of Jesus and very heavy on the
rantings of Paul. The first thing the evangelicals would do if Jesus
came back - once his identity was incontrovertibly established - would
be to put him to death, then claim he came back and told them to carry
on hating.

Not my experience, sorry.

Mine, though. A detestable bunch. If they want a church of their own
they should set one up and stop trying to take over the CofE and CofS by
stealth.

Ian

1506 and Boltar
 

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:36:12 +0100, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 02/09/11 18:21, Tim Fenton wrote:
In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit
of being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has
had considerable difficulty accepting.

Good grief.

He also claims to be Jewish, but believes in Jesus Christ (or, as he
would say, Yeshua).

Sensible way to hedge your bets, I suppose.

As with those in the Islamic world who recognise him, they don't
attribute the same qualities, status etc.

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sep 2, 2:47*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:36:12 +0100, The Real Doctor

wrote:
On 02/09/11 18:21, Tim Fenton wrote:
In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit
of being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has
had considerable difficulty accepting.

Good grief.

He also claims to be Jewish, but believes in Jesus Christ (or, as he
would say, Yeshua).

Sensible way to hedge your bets, I suppose.

As with those in the Islamic world who recognise him, they don't
attribute the same qualities, status etc.

Charles,

The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

See http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

Unfortunately, is is well beyond the grasp of young Timmy.

1506 and Boltar
 

In uk.railway Nick twisted the electrons to say:
It would seem to me dangerously irresponsible to run a health service,
or a welfare system, on the hope that random members of the general

One could argue it's dangerously irresponsible to run a welfare system at
all ...

public will contribute funds to it out of the goodness of their heart.
I mean, those members of the public who have a social conscience and
are relatively well-off probably would, but you can't rely on it.

And yet charities like the RNLI actively resist the idea of state
financing ... I guess this means deaths at sea increa

State funding through taxes means you compel people who can afford it
into giving money to support the health service and welfare, and to my
mind, that's the way it should be if you want to guarantee the income
as much as practically possible.

Any sensible charity presumably budgets for expected changes in both
income and expenditure ... Something we've yet to see any UK government
being any good at.

If you don't like paying tax, remind yourself that you might find
yourself in a position where you will be the beneficiary of the tax
system one day.

OTOH, if I hadn't been forced to pay those taxes I would've been better
off and would therefore have been less likely to need the to beg the
government to give back to me some some of the money they forcibly took
from me ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

1506 and Boltar
 

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

See http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.

Not that this is anything to do with either Boltar or u.t.l.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.


Your father was very wise.

1506 and Boltar
 

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around
in Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.

Your father was very wise.

He thought so. I agree.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.


Your father was very wise.

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sep 4, 11:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

NOT my definition, the rabbinical position since the Crusades.

1506 and Boltar
 

On 05/09/2011 08:51, 1506 wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:06 pm, Charles wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27 am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

NOT my definition, the rabbinical position since the Crusades.

A comparatively new idea then...

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

1506 and Boltar
 

On Sep 2, 8:51*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:21:56 +0100, "Tim Fenton"

wrote:

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 31/08/11 11:31, 1506 wrote:
Some of us choose to vote Conservative, no one causes us to do so.

But you live in California, don't you?

Adrian Hudson AFAIK lives in Nevada when he's at home.

In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit of
being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has had
considerable difficulty accepting.

It'll therefore be interesting to see which member of the "Tea and
Fruitcake" tendency he'll be supporting for 2012. *There's *such* an
excellent (and frighteningly bizarre) choice of candidates.

It's come to something, hasn't it, when the least wacko candidate the
Republican Party has identified to date is an adherent to a religion
involving some bloke apprently finding gold plates, translating them,
and then conveniently losing the plates.

1506 and Boltar
 

In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

On 05/09/2011 08:51, 1506 wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:06 pm, Charles wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27 am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is
the child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

NOT my definition, the rabbinical position since the Crusades.

A comparatively new idea then...

And one not universally accepted as I pointed out. My daughters have a
Jewish surname and the (fortunately small amount of) anti-semitism that goes
with it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel