I listen to R4 when I'm driving any vehicle. All I've heard about is this 
particle accelerator and the Big Bang effect. Im sick fed up of it so when 
they collide the particles I hope they go bang and the scientists disappear 
up their own black hole.

Rant over.

Hawk aye the noo.
(McKev)

"Hawk aye the noo"  wrote in message 
news:3vTxk.43193$nh3.23954@newsfe28.ams2...
>I listen to R4 when I'm driving any vehicle. All I've heard about is this 
>particle accelerator and the Big Bang effect. Im sick fed up of it so when 
>they collide the particles I hope they go bang and the scientists disappear 
>up their own black hole.
>
> Rant over.
>
> Hawk aye the noo.
> (McKev)
>

Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the 
groundbreaking non-event.

"Mark W" <s@o> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
> groundbreaking non-event.

Now _what's_ "all over"? Nothing's "all over" apart from the actual 
building of the thing.

They've turned it on and started testing it. That's all. They're not 
actually doing anything with it yet.

Following up to Mark W  

> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the 
> groundbreaking non-event.

its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.

-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Adrian  

> They've turned it on and started testing it. That's all. They're not 
> actually doing anything with it yet.

theres good entertainment value in the attempted court cases to get it
stopped because it was going to create a black hole under the alps.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

"M............"  wrote in message 
news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Mark W
>
>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>> groundbreaking non-event.
>
> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>
> -- 

It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
this useless shit.


McK

"M............"  wrote in message 
news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Mark W
>
>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>> groundbreaking non-event.
>
> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>

I've been watching all the updates and reading all I can about it, I think 
it's really interesting, even though I confess I hadn't heard of it till it 
hit the news over the past week or so.

-- 
Dan B
Clio R27

Following up to Hawk aye the noo  

> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
> this useless shit.

no doubt you thought the initial pure research into lasers was "useless
shit". If you thought at all.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to DanB  

>> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
>> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>>
> 
> I've been watching all the updates and reading all I can about it, I think 
> it's really interesting, even though I confess I hadn't heard of it till it 
> hit the news over the past week or so.

its quite good to read "new scientist" a lot is quite difficult but a
browse keeps you abreast of whats going on at the cutting edge. Interesting
this weeks headline compares the carbon footprint of a bowl of cereal to
driving a 4x4. (7 kilometres is the interesting fact).

I must say that when it gets into anti matter I nstart to boggle a bit :-)
Have you read a brief history of time?
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

In article <%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2>,
   Hawk aye the noo  wrote:
> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres
> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £
> on this useless shit.

You could make a start by cancelling the money you spend on your computer
and ISP etc and send that to help end world poverty.

-- 
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

    Dave Plowman     dave@davesound.co.uk     London SW 12

Following up to Dave Plowman  

>> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres
>> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £
>> on this useless shit.
> 
> You could make a start by cancelling the money you spend on your computer
> and ISP etc and send that to help end world poverty.

and make sure you vote for parties that support high taxes to alleviate
such problems.

I realise now it has to be spelled out for the short sighted:-
You do pure research (no one knows what will come of it, how could they)
they discover stuff (like lasers)
other people then engineer stuff like CDs and brain surgery. 
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Adrian  

> Just look at the "side-benefits" which came from CERN in the past - 
> including the World Wide Web...

they have created a new version called "the grid" for the new data, theres
rather a lot of it.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On Sep 12, 9:15 am, Halmyre <no.s...@this.address> wrote:
> In article <%0eyk.5245$t_1....@newsfe30.ams2>, m...@here.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "M............"  wrote in message
> >news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
> > > Following up to Mark W
>
> > >> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
> > >> groundbreaking non-event.
>
> > > its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
> > > posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>
> > > --
>
> > It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres
> > homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on
> > this useless shit.
>
> > McK
>
> From the LHC website:
>
> "Over the 13 year construction period (1994 to 2006 inclusive) the total UK
> contribution for the detectors, GriddPP (materials and staff effort) and
> collider was £511M. This includes the UK?s annual CERN subscription over this
> period. This is less than the price of one pint of beer per UK adult per
> year."
>
> OTOH, we are about to spend 20 billion on a Trident upgrade. Kind of puts it
> in perspective.

Maybe if we spent 20bn at CERN we could develop particle beam weapons
to replace trident ;-)

Following up to Man at B&Q  

> Maybe if we spent 20bn at CERN we could develop particle beam weapons
> to replace trident ;-)

and an anti matter drive to boldly go
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

"Man at B&Q"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> OTOH, we are about to spend 20 billion on a Trident upgrade. Kind of
>> puts it in perspective.

> Maybe if we spent 20bn at CERN we could develop particle beam weapons to
> replace trident ;-)

Why reinvent the wheel?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/20/boeing_hel_td_deal_2/

On 2008-09-11, Hawk aye the noo  wrote:
>
> "M............"  wrote in message 
> news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Following up to Mark W
>>
>>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>>> groundbreaking non-event.
>>
>> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
>> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>>
>> -- 
>
> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
> this useless shit.

The fact that you think it's "useless shit" as opposed to all the genuinely
useless shit (Olympics, Iraq, the fucking dome, etc) merely demonstrates that
you are a drooling fucktard.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Sep 11, 8:08 pm, "Hawk aye the noo"  wrote:

> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres
> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on
> this useless shit.

Quite right - as soon as there's no more hunger, poverty, illness,
war, crime or human misery we'll look at advancing the knowledge of
the species.  Maybe one day we'll finally discover how to make fire.

On Sep 12, 8:11 am, "M............"
 wrote:

> Have you read a brief history of time?

Several times - it's a bit out of date now, but must surely rank as
one of the greatest popular science books ever written.

Following up to Hawk aye the noo  

> Rant over.

"http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/About/BasicScience3-en.html"
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

On 12 Sep 2008 08:52:12 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
>> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
>> this useless shit.
>
>The fact that you think it's "useless shit" as opposed to all the genuinely
>useless shit (Olympics, Iraq, the fucking dome, etc) merely demonstrates that
>you are a drooling fucktard.

I was surprised how cheap it was. When you consider I paid 16 quid for
a pizza 20 years ago in Neuchatel. 

Seriously though all those eminent scientists, all that tunnelling,
all that heavy equipment and instrumentation (all at Swiss prices) and
all for a trifling cost that Gordon Mac Shite-Features could blow away
in a drop off before coffee one morning without batting an eye lid.

Derek

"Hawk aye the noo"  wrote in message 
news:%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "M............"  wrote in message 
> news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Following up to Mark W
>>
>>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>>> groundbreaking non-event.
>>
>> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest the
>> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>>
>> -- 
>
> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
> this useless shit.
>
>
> McK

Would there be no homelessness, poverty or severe sickness if we didn't 
spend money on research, go to the moon or invent airplanes?

Seems to me, regardless what we spend money on, there will ALWAYS be 
countries in the world who live in chaos or individuals who can't cope.

-- 
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

Adrian wrote:

> Just look at the "side-benefits" which came from CERN in the past - 
> including the World Wide Web...

I thought the Web was a result of potential nuclear annihilation? Which 
just goes to prove, "every cloud..." No, wait, 'nuclear annihilation', 
'YouTube'... GOD-DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

Hugo Nebula <abuse@localhost> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> Just look at the "side-benefits" which came from CERN in the past -
>> including the World Wide Web...

> I thought the Web was a result of potential nuclear annihilation? Which
> just goes to prove, "every cloud..." No, wait, 'nuclear annihilation',
> 'YouTube'... GOD-DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

The infrastructure behind "the Internet" is derived from the distributed 
network put in place by the US DoD, but the protocols and concepts which 
became the WWW are much more recent, and derive almost entirely from Tim 
Berners-Lee's work at CERN.

There's apparently a lot of groundbreaking work been done on data 
streaming, distributed computing and bandwidth utilisation for the LHC, 
so expect more good stuff along similar lines to flow through to 
mainstream use.

"Halmyre" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message 
news:MPG.23343581144190699899c6@news.tesco.net...
In article <%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2>, me@here.com says...
>
> "M............"  wrote in message
> news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
> > Following up to Mark W
> >
> >> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
> >> groundbreaking non-event.
> >
> > its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest 
> > the
> > posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
> >

The beginning of significant research might well be of interest. But endless 
hype on Radio 4 gets to be tedious. I haven't checked but there's a chance 
Radio 4 has actually disappeared up its own black hole.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:30:32 +0100, "Mark W" <s@o> wrote:
>
>The beginning of significant research might well be of interest. But endless 
>hype on Radio 4 gets to be tedious. I haven't checked but there's a chance 
>Radio 4 has actually disappeared up its own black hole. 
>

I hear Brian Redhead has died. His place has been taken over by a
Scottish bloke and a Welshman.

Says it all I suppose.

Derek

"Mark W" <s@o> wrote in message 
news:48cc06cb$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Halmyre" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.23343581144190699899c6@news.tesco.net...
> In article <%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2>, me@here.com says...
>>
>> "M............"  wrote in message
>> news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
>> > Following up to Mark W
>> >
>> >> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>> >> groundbreaking non-event.
>> >
>> > its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest 
>> > the
>> > posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>> >
>
> The beginning of significant research might well be of interest. But 
> endless hype on Radio 4 gets to be tedious. I haven't checked but there's 
> a chance Radio 4 has actually disappeared up its own black hole.
>

Precisely my thoughts.

McK.

"MrBitsy"  wrote in message 
news:Azzyk.10404$eJ.3679@newsfe17.ams2...
> "Hawk aye the noo"  wrote in message 
> news:%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>> "M............"  wrote in message 
>> news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Following up to Mark W
>>>
>>>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of the
>>>> groundbreaking non-event.
>>>
>>> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt interest 
>>> the
>>> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>
>> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
>> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ 
>> on this useless shit.
>>
>>
>> McK
>
> Would there be no homelessness, poverty or severe sickness if we didn't 
> spend money on research, go to the moon or invent airplanes?
>
> Seems to me, regardless what we spend money on, there will ALWAYS be 
> countries in the world who live in chaos or individuals who can't cope.
>
> -- 

Very true Ray but where is the moral conscience of the purse holders in this 
country?

McK.

Hawk aye the noo wrote:
> "MrBitsy"  wrote in message
> news:Azzyk.10404$eJ.3679@newsfe17.ams2...
>> "Hawk aye the noo"  wrote in message
>> news:%0eyk.5245$t_1.305@newsfe30.ams2...
>>>
>>> "M............"  wrote in
>>> message news:7sqsx0jbod8p.17q1s790ktldf.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> Following up to Mark W
>>>>
>>>>> Now it's all over there'll be about six months expert analysis of
>>>>> the groundbreaking non-event.
>>>>
>>>> its the beginning of very significant research, if it doesnt
>>>> interest the
>>>> posters here, that says more about the posters here than CERN.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when
>>> theres homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend
>>> billions of OUR £ on this useless shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> McK
>>
>> Would there be no homelessness, poverty or severe sickness if we
>> didn't spend money on research, go to the moon or invent airplanes?
>>
>> Seems to me, regardless what we spend money on, there will ALWAYS be
>> countries in the world who live in chaos or individuals who can't
>> cope. --
>
> Very true Ray but where is the moral conscience of the purse holders
> in this country?
>
People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:gK-dnaKqW74ovlHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

> People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.

It's funny, isn't it, that we're happy to accept this as true?

It seems hard to believe that people who have morals and a genuine desire to 
change society for the better don't *want* to become politicians - so what 
goes wrong?  Does the system prevent them from doing so, or does it ensure 
that if they do make it they are railroaded into the same old stereotypes, 
or is it that power drives all of the goodness from them, or is it that, no 
matter what they do in power, we see them as immoral bastards simply out to 
tax us for every penny we've got?

Makes you wonder, really.

AndrewR wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:gK-dnaKqW74ovlHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>> People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.
>
> It's funny, isn't it, that we're happy to accept this as true?
>
> It seems hard to believe that people who have morals and a genuine
> desire to change society for the better don't *want* to become
> politicians - so what goes wrong?  Does the system prevent them from
> doing so, or does it ensure that if they do make it they are
> railroaded into the same old stereotypes, or is it that power drives
> all of the goodness from them, or is it that, no matter what they do
> in power, we see them as immoral bastards simply out to tax us for
> every penny we've got?
> Makes you wonder, really.

For a start, look at the way the press treat politicians.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:o4idnbmAkLOqJ1HVnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com...
> AndrewR wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:gK-dnaKqW74ovlHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>> People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.
>>
>> It's funny, isn't it, that we're happy to accept this as true?
>>
>> It seems hard to believe that people who have morals and a genuine
>> desire to change society for the better don't *want* to become
>> politicians - so what goes wrong?  Does the system prevent them from
>> doing so, or does it ensure that if they do make it they are
>> railroaded into the same old stereotypes, or is it that power drives
>> all of the goodness from them, or is it that, no matter what they do
>> in power, we see them as immoral bastards simply out to tax us for
>> every penny we've got?
>> Makes you wonder, really.
>
> For a start, look at the way the press treat politicians.

Especially with this Labour carry on just now. I listented to Question Time 
on R4 yesterday and its not often that I agree with Tony Benn, but hes right 
when he says the public arent interested in who says what with party 
politics, but theres a lot off issues here that the press are paying little 
attention to - such as, heating, power gen, power prices. etc.

McK.

Hawk aye the noo wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:o4idnbmAkLOqJ1HVnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> AndrewR wrote:
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>> news:gK-dnaKqW74ovlHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>> People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.
>>>
>>> It's funny, isn't it, that we're happy to accept this as true?
>>>
>>> It seems hard to believe that people who have morals and a genuine
>>> desire to change society for the better don't *want* to become
>>> politicians - so what goes wrong?  Does the system prevent them from
>>> doing so, or does it ensure that if they do make it they are
>>> railroaded into the same old stereotypes, or is it that power drives
>>> all of the goodness from them, or is it that, no matter what they do
>>> in power, we see them as immoral bastards simply out to tax us for
>>> every penny we've got?
>>> Makes you wonder, really.
>>
>> For a start, look at the way the press treat politicians.
>
> Especially with this Labour carry on just now. I listented to
> Question Time on R4 yesterday and its not often that I agree with
> Tony Benn, but hes right when he says the public arent interested in
> who says what with party politics, but theres a lot off issues here
> that the press are paying little attention to - such as, heating,
> power gen, power prices. etc.
Perhaps that's because the press concentrate on the individuals and their 
natural human failings rather than dealing with the issues that we employ 
politicians to handle?

On 2008-09-12, Derek Geldard  wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2008 08:52:12 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> It says more about the govts of this (and other) countrys when theres 
>>> homelessness, poverty, severe sickness and they spend billions of OUR £ on 
>>> this useless shit.
>>
>>The fact that you think it's "useless shit" as opposed to all the genuinely
>>useless shit (Olympics, Iraq, the fucking dome, etc) merely demonstrates that
>>you are a drooling fucktard.
>
> I was surprised how cheap it was. When you consider I paid 16 quid for
> a pizza 20 years ago in Neuchatel. 
>
> Seriously though all those eminent scientists, all that tunnelling,
> all that heavy equipment and instrumentation (all at Swiss prices) and
> all for a trifling cost that Gordon Mac Shite-Features could blow away
> in a drop off before coffee one morning without batting an eye lid.

Quite so. For the same costs as a pint of beer, each. Worth every penny, IMO.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:qqadnTAhqZymS1HVRVnyugA@bt.com...

> Perhaps that's because the press concentrate on the individuals and their 
> natural human failings rather than dealing with the issues that we employ 
> politicians to handle?

The press concentrate on whatever shifts newspapers - if more people pick up 
the paper with the headline, "MP caught in video sex tape scandal" than the 
one with the headline, "MP proposes radical shake-up of state benefits" is 
that the fault of the press?

AndrewR wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:qqadnTAhqZymS1HVRVnyugA@bt.com...
>
>> Perhaps that's because the press concentrate on the individuals and
>> their natural human failings rather than dealing with the issues
>> that we employ politicians to handle?
>
> The press concentrate on whatever shifts newspapers - if more people
> pick up the paper with the headline, "MP caught in video sex tape
> scandal" than the one with the headline, "MP proposes radical
> shake-up of state benefits" is that the fault of the press?

Of course it is. Who decides what to use as a headline, the editor or the 
purchaser at the newsagents?

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> The fact that you think it's "useless shit" as opposed to all the genuinely
> useless shit (Olympics, Iraq, the fucking dome, etc) merely demonstrates that
> you are a drooling fucktard.

Indeed, this is the sort of "useless shite" along with a decent European
manned space program that I do want to see my taxes spent on.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:42:04 +0100, "Hawk aye the noo" 
wrote:


>> For a start, look at the way the press treat politicians.
>
>Especially with this Labour carry on just now. I listented to Question Time 
>on R4 yesterday and its not often that I agree with Tony Benn, but hes right 
>when he says the public arent interested in who says what with party 
>politics, but theres a lot off issues here that the press are paying little 
>attention to - such as, heating, power gen, power prices. etc.
>

Sorry you've lost me. Was there a particular point to be made?

Derek

In uk.rec.driving, Brimstone wrote:
>People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.

Oh, I think they do. It's just that the higher they get, the weaker
their conscience becomes. Or, the weaker their conscience becomes, the
higher they get. Take your pick.

-- 
Mike Barnes

In uk.rec.driving, AndrewR wrote:
>The press concentrate on whatever shifts newspapers - if more people
>pick up the paper with the headline, "MP caught in video sex tape
>scandal" than the one with the headline, "MP proposes radical shake-up
>of state benefits" is that the fault of the press?

Yes.

-- 
Mike Barnes

"Mike Barnes"  wrote in message 
news:LM20x0+1kPzIFwyG@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid...
> In uk.rec.driving, Brimstone wrote:
>>People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.
>
> Oh, I think they do. It's just that the higher they get, the weaker
> their conscience becomes. Or, the weaker their conscience becomes, the
> higher they get. Take your pick.
>
> -- 

Very true. The morality get sapped out of them as they climb higher.

Following up to Hugo Nebula  

> I thought the Web was a result of potential nuclear annihilation?

myth like NASA inventing teflon and velcro
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to Mark W  

>  But endless 
> hype on Radio 4 gets to be tedious.

compared to the Archers, no way.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to AndrewR  

>> People with a moral conscience don't become politicians.
> 
> It's funny, isn't it, that we're happy to accept this as true?

more sad, i dont think its true at all. Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.
 
> It seems hard to believe that people who have morals and a genuine desire to 
> change society for the better don't *want* to become politicians - so what 
> goes wrong?  Does the system prevent them from doing so, or does it ensure 
> that if they do make it they are railroaded into the same old stereotypes, 
> or is it that power drives all of the goodness from them, or is it that, no 
> matter what they do in power, 

some are corrupted by power, some never had values in the first place, Ken
Livingstone I suspect of having no values and just wants power. 
Many do want to change society for what they see as better. I think a lot
of them do a lot of minor good stuff in thier constituencies, when it comes
to setting policies for a political party that has to be judged by the
media to win an election you are into a different story. I dont know what
deal Blair made with the right wing press or indeed where he popped up
from, but i'm sure it would have compromise written all over it.

>we see them as immoral bastards simply out to 
> tax us for every penny we've got?

thats how many see them, yes. Largely because they dont want to believe
taxation is a good thing.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Following up to AndrewR  

> The press concentrate on whatever shifts newspapers - if more people pick up 
> the paper with the headline, "MP caught in video sex tape scandal" than the 
> one with the headline, "MP proposes radical shake-up of state benefits" is 
> that the fault of the press?

Given their sanctimonious-ness, yes. The Spanish press has newspapers and
it has gossip rags, we combine the two to bad effect.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

M............ wrote:
> Following up to Hugo Nebula
>
>> I thought the Web was a result of potential nuclear annihilation?
>
> myth like NASA inventing teflon and velcro

Indeed, regarding velcro at least, as anyone who has watched Star Trek: 
Enterprise will know.

M............ wrote:
>  I dont know what deal Blair made with the right wing press or
> indeed where he popped up from,

He's Thatcher's love child.

Following up to Brimstone  

>>  I dont know what deal Blair made with the right wing press or
>> indeed where he popped up from,
> 
> He's Thatcher's love child.

its so logical it must be true.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:vvidnf-qjJPDgFPVnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@bt.com...
> M............ wrote:
>>  I dont know what deal Blair made with the right wing press or
>> indeed where he popped up from,
>
> He's Thatcher's love child.


There's a very good book about the continuation of government policy from 
Thatcher, through Major, to Blair,  by Simon Jenkins called, "Thatcher and 
sons" ... well worth reading.

M............  wrote:

> Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
> moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.

Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
"all wrong" is it?

In article <1inb385.35km4y993f1oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
   Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> M............  wrote:

> > Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
> > moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.

> Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
> "all wrong" is it?

She may have expected that from others. But until that sort of thing is
extended to cover MPs too it is just so much bollocks.

-- 
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

    Dave Plowman     dave@davesound.co.uk     London SW 12

Steve Firth wrote:
> M............  wrote:
>
>> Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
>> moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.
>
> Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
> "all wrong" is it?

Is that why she caused so many to go on the dole?

Dave Plowman  wrote:

> In article <1inb385.35km4y993f1oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
>    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > M............  wrote:
> 
> > > Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
> > > moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.
> 
> > Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
> > "all wrong" is it?
> 
> She may have expected that from others. But until that sort of thing is
> extended to cover MPs too it is just so much bollocks.

I don't agree it's "so much bollocks" because MPs behave badly. I do
agree that MPs should live up to the standards they expect from others.
That includes pay restraint, transparency of expenses, and the
expectation that they put in a proper working day.

OTOH I'd prefer to a system where the number of days that Parliament is
allowed to sit is extremely limited and where laws may only be passed if
laws are removed from statute at the same speed.

Hawk aye the noo wrote:

> I listen to R4 when I'm driving any vehicle. All I've heard about is this
> particle accelerator and the Big Bang effect. Im sick fed up of it so when
> they collide the particles I hope they go bang and the scientists disappear
> up their own black hole.

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

Graham

Following up to Dave Plowman  

>>> Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
>>> moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.
> 
>> Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
>> "all wrong" is it?
> 
> She may have expected that from others. But until that sort of thing is
> extended to cover MPs too it is just so much bollocks.

I was more worried by her starting avoidable wars, selling off all sorts of
industries cheap and starving the public services of funds, not to mention
destroying the public housing stock with right to buy.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

M............  wrote:

> I was more worried by her starting avoidable wars,

Care to compare her record with Blair's?

> selling off all sorts of industries cheap

Or more properly removing industries from state subsidy and control.

> and starving the public services of funds,

Sounding the end of the gravy train for shiftless "public" servants
whose specialist skills were lead-swinging, graft and corruption.

> not to mention destroying the public housing stock with right to buy.

Most of those houses look in better condition than they were when they
were in public ownership, hardly "destroyed".


So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she caused
people to work for a living and to invest for their future?

Steve Firth wrote:
> M............  wrote:
>
>> I was more worried by her starting avoidable wars,
>
> Care to compare her record with Blair's?
>
>> selling off all sorts of industries cheap
>
> Or more properly removing industries from state subsidy and control.
>
>> and starving the public services of funds,
>
> Sounding the end of the gravy train for shiftless "public" servants
> whose specialist skills were lead-swinging, graft and corruption.
>
>> not to mention destroying the public housing stock with right to buy.
>
> Most of those houses look in better condition than they were when they
> were in public ownership, hardly "destroyed".
>
>
> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?

Is that why she put millions on to the dole?

"Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she caused
>> people to work for a living and to invest for their future?

> Is that why she put millions on to the dole?

You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped up by 
taxpayers?

Adrian  wrote:

> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
> 
> >> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she caused
> >> people to work for a living and to invest for their future?
> 
> > Is that why she put millions on to the dole?

No, that was Labour. They're doing it again this time around.

> You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped up by
> taxpayers?

Brim's keeping true to his 70s traditions by failing to see any
connection between "doing useful work" and "getting paid".

Adrian wrote:
> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
>>> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?
>
>> Is that why she put millions on to the dole?
>
> You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped up by
> taxpayers?

I was thinking of the private companies that closed rather than the 
nationalised industries. In all casees, it's not what one does, it's they 
way that it's done that matters. Simply telling people not to bother turning 
up on Monday 'cause there isn't a job for them isn't the way to make friends 
and influence people.

Steve Firth wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
>>>> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?
>>
>>> Is that why she put millions on to the dole?
>
> No, that was Labour.

Wrong, they only managed c1.2 million. Thatcher managed over 3 million.

> They're doing it again this time around.

Boom and bust is a feature of the capitalist system. It's just a shame that 
those who have decided to take on the job of running the country and its 
businesses haven't learnt to manage it yet.

>> You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped up
>> by taxpayers?
>
> Brim's keeping true to his 70s traditions by failing to see any
> connection between "doing useful work" and "getting paid".

So which do yo think would be more beneficial to the country as a whole, 
having people doing something useful, albeit unprofitable, or squanding 
millions of pounds of oil revenue on keeping them idle on the dole (as we 
have at the moment)?

Following up to Brimstone  

>> Care to compare her record with Blair's?

he was in her mould.  Dont think Thatcher bad means Blair good.

>>> selling off all sorts of industries cheap
>>
>> Or more properly removing industries from state subsidy and control.

selling them off >>cheap<< to make "little capitalists", where did I say
they should remian in the state?

>>> and starving the public services of funds,
>>
>> Sounding the end of the gravy train for shiftless "public" servants
>> whose specialist skills were lead-swinging, graft and corruption.

thats just moronic, nurses are lead swingers?

>>> not to mention destroying the public housing stock with right to buy.
>>
>> Most of those houses look in better condition than they were when they
>> were in public ownership, hardly "destroyed".

read what I said, the public housing stock, no longer avaialble to the low
paid.

>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
>> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?

I dont like Thatcher for the reasons I gave, not the things you tried to
change it to.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

"Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>>>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
>>>>> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?

>>>> Is that why she put millions on to the dole?

>> No, that was Labour.

> Wrong, they only managed c1.2 million. Thatcher managed over 3 million.

>> They're doing it again this time around.

> Boom and bust is a feature of the capitalist system. It's just a shame
> that those who have decided to take on the job of running the country
> and its businesses haven't learnt to manage it yet.

Have they _ever_?

The recession of the early '80s was a natural and necessary step which 
had to be taken to drag this country's economy out of the laughable mire 
that had been inherited from the '70s. Are you suggesting the same is 
true of the current economic conditions? If so, whose legacy is it...?

>>> You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped up by
>>> taxpayers?

>> Brim's keeping true to his 70s traditions by failing to see any
>> connection between "doing useful work" and "getting paid".

> So which do yo think would be more beneficial to the country as a whole,
> having people doing something useful, albeit unprofitable, or squanding
> millions of pounds of oil revenue on keeping them idle on the dole (as
> we have at the moment)?

There's rather a big difference between spending money on dole payments 
and/or getting those unemployed back into viable employment and pissing 
money down a black hole on pointless, expensive make-work rubbish. Which 
is what a lot of the nationalised industries of the '70s were.

Following up to Adrian  

> There's rather a big difference between spending money on dole payments 
> and/or getting those unemployed back into viable employment and pissing 
> money down a black hole on pointless, expensive make-work rubbish. Which 
> is what a lot of the nationalised industries of the '70s were.

I wonder where the newly nationalised industry in the US will be judged to
fit with that in the fullness of time.
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

Adrian wrote:
> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>>>>> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
>>>>>> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their
>>>>>> future?
>
>>>>> Is that why she put millions on to the dole?
>
>>> No, that was Labour.
>
>> Wrong, they only managed c1.2 million. Thatcher managed over 3
>> million.
>
>>> They're doing it again this time around.
>
>> Boom and bust is a feature of the capitalist system. It's just a
>> shame that those who have decided to take on the job of running the
>> country and its businesses haven't learnt to manage it yet.
>
> Have they _ever_?

Hence my use of the past tense. If the lessons had been learnt then we 
wouldn't be in the shit now. The arrogance of youth plays a major part in 
that failure.

> The recession of the early '80s was a natural and necessary step which
> had to be taken to drag this country's economy out of the laughable
> mire that had been inherited from the '70s. Are you suggesting the
> same is true of the current economic conditions? If so, whose legacy
> is it...?

Who's fault is immaterial, sitting around pointing fingers achieves nothing. 
This isn't an old Irish joke, we can't start the journey from where we would 
like to be. I don't disagree that the situation that the country faced in 
the late seventies and early eighties needed sorting. But, as I've said 
before, what one does is very different from how one does it. The present 
levels of unemployment is a consequence of decisions taken then.

>>>> You'd rather unsustainable moneypits had continued to be propped
>>>> up by taxpayers?
>
>>> Brim's keeping true to his 70s traditions by failing to see any
>>> connection between "doing useful work" and "getting paid".
>
>> So which do yo think would be more beneficial to the country as a
>> whole, having people doing something useful, albeit unprofitable, or
>> squanding millions of pounds of oil revenue on keeping them idle on
>> the dole (as we have at the moment)?
>
> There's rather a big difference between spending money on dole
> payments and/or getting those unemployed back into viable employment
> and pissing money down a black hole on pointless, expensive make-work
> rubbish. Which is what a lot of the nationalised industries of the
> '70s were.

You asked earlier whose fault it was, try answering the question in relation 
to your last point. But, don't bother with the previous few years, try 
looking back over several decades for the causes. The only common theme is 
the failure by those in charge (politicians and businessmen) to take action.

Following up to Brimstone  

> Who's fault is immaterial, sitting around pointing fingers achieves nothing. 
> This isn't an old Irish joke, we can't start the journey from where we would 
> like to be. I don't disagree that the situation that the country faced in 
> the late seventies and early eighties needed sorting. But, as I've said 
> before, what one does is very different from how one does it. The present 
> levels of unemployment is a consequence of decisions taken then.

tomorrows level of unemployement will be the consequence of decisions taken
(or not taken) by financial regulators in the US and by the effects (on
world market prices for raw materials and location of capital) of
globalisation, especially in the context of China and India. Govt has shown
little interest in primary and manufacturing industry, but within the
constraints of globalisation I doubt much could be done. Now the City is
going part way down the pan........
-- 
M..........
google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove the obvious  to email

M............  wrote:

> Following up to Brimstone  
> 
> >> Care to compare her record with Blair's?
> 
> he was in her mould.  Dont think Thatcher bad means Blair good.

Where did I say such a thing. He was, however the leader of the Labour
party. Or are you advocating some lame-arsed failed Communist demand
economy? Checks rest of page, oh, yes you are, you're economically
illiterate and you think money grows on trees.

> >>> selling off all sorts of industries cheap
> >>
> >> Or more properly removing industries from state subsidy and control.
> 
> selling them off >>cheap<< to make "little capitalists", where did I say
> they should remian in the state?

There are only two things to do with them, have them as private
companies or as nationalised industrys. The latter failed,
spectacularly, and has failed in every nation that has tried it. At the
time, the view was that the share prices were too high, no one could
predict subsequent demand.
 
> >>> and starving the public services of funds,
> >>
> >> Sounding the end of the gravy train for shiftless "public" servants
> >> whose specialist skills were lead-swinging, graft and corruption.
> 
> thats just moronic,

And you're a stupid cunt.

> nurses are lead swingers?

I take it you've never worked in a hospital? The answer is "yes", BTW.
Nor are nurses the only public servant. You moron.

> >>> not to mention destroying the public housing stock with right to buy.
> >>
> >> Most of those houses look in better condition than they were when they
> >> were in public ownership, hardly "destroyed".
> 
> read what I said,

I did.

> the public housing stock, no longer avaialble to the low
> paid.

You didn't mention "the low paid" nor was "the public housing stock"
available to "the low paid". It was mostly in the hands of the lazy,
useless, multiple-progenies, dole-drawing oublic.

> >> So you basic summary is that you don't like Thatcher because she
> >> caused people to work for a living and to invest for their future?
> 
> I dont like Thatcher for the reasons I gave, not the things you tried to
> change it to.

I didn't "try to change it" to anything. I wasked you a question and you
have confirmed above that you don't like Thatcher because she had a work
ethic.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:15:26 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>M............  wrote:
>
>> Even Margeret Thatcher had a strong
>> moral concience, just she had her values all wrong.
>
>Expecting people to stand on their own feet and work for a living is
>"all wrong" is it?

It is in a country where the people just aren't up to it.