"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.


So that anyone who believes they can make a positive contribution to society
and may become a public figure as a result, is a fair target for public
humilation and ridicule are they ?

Presumably they should instead do nothing except stay at home in front of
their computers in their pyjamas or underpants if they so choose where
while stuffing themselves with pizza or jaffa cakes they can safely type any
old rubbish they like, about anyone, even under an assumed name if they so
choose.

Isn't Usenet wonderful!



michael adams

....





tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol positively
helped those people to function effectively. In the case of Peter Cook his
increasing
liking for the booze prevented him from ever again doing any useful work. Spot the
difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.

In message
allanbonnetracy wrote:



Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he
too was leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially
during the difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations
with other European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It
was during the period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol
positively helped those people to function effectively. In the case of
Peter Cook his increasing liking for the booze prevented him from ever
again doing any useful work. Spot the difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.

Godwin!

(and it's teetotal)

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 2009-09-28 18:58:23 +0100, Tom Anderson said:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is
always fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure
means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

tom

Being insulting to the person is childish, boorish and ill-mannered.
One may well have differences of opinion about policies, these can be
debated, but being rude is not acceptable. It was not as if Macmillan
had been found with his nose in the trough as some of our current crop
of MPs and peers are allegedly wont to do.
I remember the 'Establishment' incident as I was a 21 year old student
in London at the time - even then I found the incident left a bad taste
in the mouth.
--
Robert

"allanbonnetracy" wrote in message
...


Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol positively
helped those people to function effectively. In the case of Peter Cook his
increasing
liking for the booze prevented him from ever again doing any useful work. Spot the
difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.


But he chewed carpets* instead.

Your point being ?


michael adams



*William Shirer "Rise and Fall of The Third Reich"
find the page yourself.

On Sep 28, 3:38*am, "michael adams" wrote:

As is often the case after a Govt. has been in office for so long they often look
tired by comparison with a hungry opposition which also has never had the
opportunity to make mistakes. Or been subject to the vicissitudes of
"Events, dear boy events".

Your remark has merrit. Thirteen years was a long time. IIRC labor
made something of this at the time "Thirteen wasted years".

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

OTOH, turning the corrupt Marples loose on the UK’s transportation
system certainly was directly attributable to SuperMac. As was his
chancellor’s poor control of the money supply. And bating the
electorate was not an especially smart move. Although his statement
was correct. Most working class British Subjects were living life
styles undreamt of prior to WWII.

If anything caused the fall
of Macmillan as much as anything it was his being an easy target for
mimicry
starting with Peter Cook. More especially the humilation he suffered at
the hands of the arsehole Cook who directly insulted him from the satge
of "Beyond the Fringe".

Why would anybody with a shred of self respect want to pay to hear the
foul mouthed Cook? The BBC, and any other decent body that did so,
should be ashamed that they ever gave Cook a platform. If lowlifes
want to enjoy the right to free assembly and exchange their
distasteful verbiage, so be it. But, that venue was surely far below
endorsement by the presence Her Majesty's First Minister.

On Sep 28, 10:28*am, Tom Barry wrote:
E27002 wrote:

Thank you. *I agree. *It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. *My issue is with the
mentality that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point.
For what type of humans where these structure built.

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards. *It took 30 years or so for the city to come to terms with
it, but it's actually done so, and in a way that has actually
strengthened the community (and notably in ways that none of the
politicians, engineers and planners of the original road foresaw).

http://www.westway.org/about_us/history/#a

London works as a high density metropolis. It was not built for
cars. Had the rest of the ringway been build London would not have
been to same City. You may find that desirable. I don't.

What else? *Centre Point's a fine piece of architecture let down by the
base of it being designed for a car-based city rather than a pedestrian
based one. *This is finally being remedied as part of the TCR station
upgrade, which will arguably complete the job of integrating the
building with the city properly. *There's a common thread linking CP and
Westway, which is insufficient attention paid to the interface between
old and new, which I grant you is a valid criticism of a lot of post war
planning.

IMHO, Centre Point is out of place. It lacks sympathy with its
surroundings. Although the main issue, as you say, is its base. It
belongs next to a Freeway exit, not a subway station.

Euston we've covered - by any stretch it's a better *railway station*
than the old Euston, and works as part of the city scape in a consistent
and rational manner - the side down Eversholt St. is a bit of an
eyesore, but the side of Kings Cross on York Way isn't much better than
a blank brick wall either, and nobody criticises KX for being what it is
- a functional, stripped down modern building (that happens to have been
built in the mid-19th century rather than the mid-20th century).

Euston is somewhat functional. I prefer, the rebuilt, Liverpool
Street as an example of what can be done. King's Cross is a great
historical monument. I am not convinced that it functions especially
well as a railway station. :-)

So I'm not sure what the point of that was. *There are plenty of bad
examples of concrete use around, so why pick 2 good examples and one
fifty-fifty one?


Sure, there are plenty of other examples. The discussion was about
the merits of rebuilding the Euston "Arch", albeit in concrete. I
think that would be a good thing. It was destroyed by people with the
same mentality that gave the UK so much, IMHO, bad architecture. I
cited three examples of utilitarian 1960s structures that look, to me,
as if they were built for robots.

On Sep 28, 10:58*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:
Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

Until Michael pointed it out, I had been unaware of Harold MacMillan's
WWI record. That alone commands respect. It makes him a better man
than me. He is certainly superior cook. But, why in the world put
himself in the firing line of cook's abuse.

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

In message
E27002 wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

Not applicable to you Adrian, but anyone else interested might like to hunt
out a recent BBC/OU programme on iPlayer, Saving the Market. All about the
campaign to save Covent Garden from demolition, has a lot about the proposed
inner urban motorway box we nearly got in the centre of London.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail