On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:38:23 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:




If a mage was saying the mpg was 10% less than what the makers say, then you
take note. But when they say its only fraction, then the mag is called into
question, especially when independent mags and uses get near 3 times as
much.

No, you look at bothe sets of tests and data in more detail.




I wouldn't make a decision on who
I believed based on shear weight of
numbers either way, but would weigh
up the information and look for
disinterested sources.

When only one say something ridiculous, it is the one which is at fault.

Not necessarily. One has to look at what tests were done and who did
them and where. I seriously doubt that most magazines have the
resources to do their own testing and simply rely on peer information
and that from the makers.





In that sense, Graham can be discounted because he is a purchaser of
the product but without any independent measurement resources.

Once one throws away the noise of
interested parties and the
incompetent and looks for the
competent and disinterested, it becomse
very easy to find the truth.

And a quite look around the web gives you it. And all they had to do was
ask me.

Well that would be a reliable source of course.


However, whether you agreed with
her or not, there was never any doubt
about wher eshe stood on most issues.

Yep. The wrong stance.

From your perspective, not from mine.

From the mass poverty, 1000s living on the streets,

There are still 1000s living on the streets. Have you looked around
the Waterloo and Kings Cross areas lately?

the disappearance of British industry (the new Queen Mary had to be
built in France), etc.

British industry as it was was disappearing anyway thanks to the
restrictive practices of the unions. Propping up the untenable never
works for very long and the drop when the inevitable happens then
hurts all the more.



This is no longer true for any
politician that I can see of any party,

Thank God.

That is actually a shame. There are
none now who have a clear stance.

If a clear stance means: mass poverty, 1000s living on the streets, which
disgusted Mother Theresa, the disappearance of British industry (the new
Queen Mary had to be built in France), etc, then we don't need clear
stances. Hitler had a clear stance.

A clear stance means a clear stance. Nobody said that you had to
agree with it.



and Herr Blurr is worse than
most in terms of telling you what you want to hear.

Best MP we have had in living memory.
Best government we have had in living
memory. That is obvious.

Not according to my definition.

But you are in Little Middle England. That is sad.

How's the one room council flat?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl