Never having handled the stuff, I don't quite know what to
expect, so a quick question:

Would 2" Jablite span 1.5 metres without sagging? If not, then
what should my maximum span be?

TIA

--
Grunff

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Never having handled the stuff, I don't quite know what to
expect, so a quick question:

Would 2" Jablite span 1.5 metres without sagging? If not, then
what should my maximum span be?

TIA

--
Grunff


This tells you a lot more about this stuff Grunff:

http://www.vencel.co.uk/products/insulation/



Also, this is interesting reading:

http://tinyurl.com/lcfa

Grunff wrote:

Never having handled the stuff, I don't quite know what to expect, so a
quick question:

Would 2" Jablite span 1.5 metres without sagging? If not, then what
should my maximum span be?



Yes. Easily.
Its very stiff, and very light.


TIA

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yes. Easily.
Its very stiff, and very light.

Superb, thanks.

What about cutting it? Sharp knife? Jigsaw? Hot wire?

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
Would 2" Jablite span 1.5 metres without sagging? If not, then
what should my maximum span be?

Depends on how you are supporting it, whether it's flat
or on edge. Can you be a bit more descriptive?


__________________________________________________ ______________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com

in2minds wrote:

what are you putting on top of it ?

Nothing - I'll be suspending it between two rafters - all it has
to do is take it's own weight without sagging.

you certainly couldn't walk on it or pour concrete on it if it isn't supported, it will
break.

I can guess that much from the fact that it's polystyrene ;-)

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

what are you putting on top of it ?

Nothing - I'll be suspending it between two rafters - all it has to do
is take it's own weight without sagging.

Why not just pull it taut and put a couple of screws in at each end? It
might sag a bit over time, but will you see it?

Ben.

ben wrote:

Why not just pull it taut and put a couple of screws in at each end? It
might sag a bit over time, but will you see it?

It will actually be visible in this case - it's a storage shed.
But more importantly, it will be supported on battens screwed to
the rafters (sitting on top of the battens). If it was to sag
significantly, it would fall off the battens, hence the question.

I'm not sure screwing would be very successful, given the low
denisty nature of the material.

--
Grunff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:

Never having handled the stuff, I don't quite know what to expect, so a
quick question:

Would 2" Jablite span 1.5 metres without sagging? If not, then what
should my maximum span be?



Yes. Easily.
Its very stiff, and very light.

Can you do the tango on it?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yes. Easily.
Its very stiff, and very light.


Superb, thanks.

What about cutting it? Sharp knife? Jigsaw? Hot wire?


All of those.

ben wrote:

Grunff wrote:

ben wrote:

Why not just pull it taut and put a couple of screws in at each end?
It might sag a bit over time, but will you see it?


It will actually be visible in this case - it's a storage shed. But
more importantly, it will be supported on battens screwed to the
rafters (sitting on top of the battens). If it was to sag
significantly, it would fall off the battens, hence the question.

I'm not sure screwing would be very successful, given the low denisty
nature of the material.


I can't help much with the long-term sagging, but I don't see why the
low density of polystyrene would be an impediment to screwing into it.
Obviously you couldn't torque them up, but they would still be effective
anchors. You could use small nails, even, and push the sheeting down on
top.

Ben.


I have built several model planes out of it, and if sag is an issue,
just paste lining paper over it. Incredibly strong. I would have said
cover it in epoxy/glass fiber with some carbon fiber spars in, but you
don't want to fly it at 200mph do you? :-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
ben wrote:

Grunff wrote:

ben wrote:

Why not just pull it taut and put a couple of screws in at each end?
It might sag a bit over time, but will you see it?


It will actually be visible in this case - it's a storage shed. But
more importantly, it will be supported on battens screwed to the
rafters (sitting on top of the battens). If it was to sag
significantly, it would fall off the battens, hence the question.

I'm not sure screwing would be very successful, given the low denisty
nature of the material.


I can't help much with the long-term sagging, but I don't see why the
low density of polystyrene would be an impediment to screwing into it.
Obviously you couldn't torque them up, but they would still be effective
anchors. You could use small nails, even, and push the sheeting down on
top.

Ben.

I have built several model planes out of it,

Do you put them next to your How Things Work annual.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is it some sort of text book from your un-snotty uni?

He went to uni???

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is it some sort of text book from your un-snotty uni?


He went to uni???


So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows
from watching Bob the Builder.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is it some sort of text book from your un-snotty uni?


He went to uni???


So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows
from watching Bob the Builder.

ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:

So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows
from watching Bob the Builder.


ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!

At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea,
what exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge?
Redbricks? Or just any uni that wasn't a poly up until 7 years ago?

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

IMM wrote:

So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows
from watching Bob the Builder.



ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!


At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea, what
exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge? Redbricks? Or
just any uni that wasn't a poly up until 7 years ago?

Any uni he wanted to go to but wouldn't have him


Need you ask?

IMM wrote:

"Grunff" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows

from watching Bob the Builder.


ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!

At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea,
what exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge?


yes. and Durham and other assorted minor snots.


Redbricks?


Never.



Durhamn is a redbrick.

I have revised my definition. I think it is actually any university he
knew he would never get into.

Now being as thick as he is, that leaves lodas of monor ones he THOUGHT
he would get into, but fortunately never had to actually find out
whether or not he could.

I thik he went to the south bank University of the manchester ship canal,

run by that nice Mr Kunning. who gives away big red books of political theory,

the bumper book of how things work, and a freshly printed degree certificate

to anyone with £15 and a certificate from the DHSS entitleing them

to free education at the taxpayers expense.




Or just any uni that wasn't a poly up until 7 years ago?


never.



Correct. Mr Kunnings establishment was a fish and chip shop - and indeed
still is, downstairs, underneath the printing presses - 7 years ago.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Grunff" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he
knows

from watching Bob the Builder.


ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!

At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea,
what exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge?


yes. and Durham and other assorted minor snots.


Redbricks?


Never.

Durhamn is a redbrick.

Redbrick uni's are those that came about in the 1800s. The term redbrick
comes from a block at Liverpool University (the one with the clock tower)
which was "redbrick". Durham is older than the 1800s. I think older than
Cambridge.

Most British uni's have been established since WW2. We have approx 100 of
them. Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes in, and those unis who
are older say they are better in some way, with nothing to base this absurd
claim on.

The "ancient" uni's, that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way. Predominantly Oxbridge has become a clique of privately
educated people, who later in life only give jobs to those who go to certain
private schools and went to Oxbridge.

I thik he went to the south bank University of the manchester ship canal,

Never heard of it.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:

IMM wrote:

So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he
knows
from watching Bob the Builder.

ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!

At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea, what
exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge? Redbricks? Or
just any uni that wasn't a poly up until 7 years ago?

Any uni he wanted to go to but wouldn't have him

Need you ask?

ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:44:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Durhamn is a redbrick.

Redbrick uni's are those that came about in the 1800s.

Generally usage covers the late 19th and early 20th century.

The term redbrick
comes from a block at Liverpool University (the one with the clock tower)
which was "redbrick". Durham is older than the 1800s. I think older than
Cambridge.

LOL. From http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcm0www/aboutus.htm:

"Founded in 1832, Durham is the third oldest university in England. It
developed in Durham and Newcastle until 1963, when the independent
University of Newcastle upon Tyne came into being."

Which makes Durham just *slightly* younger than Oxford (c 1096) and
Cambridge (c 1209).

Most British uni's have been established since WW2. We have approx 100 of
them.

Of which you attended .... ????

Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes in, and those unis who
are older say they are better in some way, with nothing to base this absurd
claim on.

Of course ... as long as you regard things like Nobel Prizes as being
"nothing".

The "ancient" uni's,

They may be ancient, but that are not "uni's". The word is
"university".

that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way.

"Perverse"? As in "provide superlative facilities for undergraduate
education together with world-class research facilities"??

Predominantly Oxbridge has become a clique of privately
educated people, who later in life only give jobs to those who go to certain
private schools and went to Oxbridge.

"Has become"? This might have been a true statement about Oxford and
Cambridge 40-50 years ago, but is really not the case any more. In
any case, in today's job market the importance of the source (and
subject, and grade) of degree diminishes rapidly - outside of graduate
recruitment, employers look for practical and successful experience,
skills, and knowledge rather than baseline academic qualifications.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...

Most British uni's have been established since WW2. We have approx 100
of
them.

Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes in, and those unis who
are older say they are better in some way, with nothing to base this
absurd
claim on.

Of course ... as long as you regard things
like Nobel Prizes as being "nothing".

They are pretty meaningless you are right. BTW, Birmingham uni perfected
RADAR in WW2 and Manchester the computer after WW2, the snotties were too
interested in teaching Ancient Greek.

The "ancient" uni's,

They may be ancient, but that are not "uni's".
The word is "university".

uni in the trade me dear boy.

that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way.

"Perverse"? As in "provide superlative facilities for undergraduate
education together with world-class research facilities"??

So do others.

Predominantly Oxbridge has become
a clique of privately educated people,
who later in life only give jobs to those
who go to certain private schools and
went to Oxbridge.

"Has become"?

You are right. It should have been "always was".

This might have been
a true statement about Oxford and
Cambridge 40-50 years ago, but
is really not the case any more.

How naive. Read Jeremy Paxman's book. Most top jobs in this country are
filled with public school/Oxbridge. He points all this out.

In any case, in today's job market the
importance of the source (and
subject, and grade) of degree diminishes
rapidly - outside of graduate recruitment,
employers look for practical and successful
experience, skills, and knowledge rather
than baseline academic qualifications.

As a general case yes you are right in the real world. At the top, where
power is, it is very different. In certain key jobs in the judiciary,
foreign office, Whitehall, top staff of the military, it is nearly all
public school/Oxbridge with the odd non public school kid thrown in, who are
usually far brighter than the rest, as to be accepted into thre clan you
have to be brilliant; they can all be public school buffoons as long as they
went to the right school and have a silly puff like arcccent. In the
military it may be certain public schools and then straight into a certain
snotty usless chocolate soldier regiment.

It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent enough to
do these jobs. Or more realistically they are keeping a gravy train
running for themselves.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:


It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent enough to
do these jobs.



How true.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:46:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .

Most British uni's have been established since WW2. We have approx 100
of
them.

Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes in, and those unis who
are older say they are better in some way, with nothing to base this
absurd
claim on.

Of course ... as long as you regard things
like Nobel Prizes as being "nothing".

They are pretty meaningless you are right. BTW, Birmingham uni perfected
RADAR in WW2 and Manchester the computer after WW2,

Not sure about "perfected", but both institutions made vital
contributions to those technologies. Fine universities, then and now.

the snotties were too
interested in teaching Ancient Greek.

.... as well as the odd spot of research in fundamentals of nuclear
physics (Rutherford), molecular biololgy (Crick & Watson), amongst
many others.

The "ancient" uni's,

They may be ancient, but that are not "uni's".
The word is "university".

uni in the trade me dear boy.

.... and what "trade" would that be? Clearly one with a limited
command of the English language!

that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way.

"Perverse"? As in "provide superlative facilities for undergraduate
education together with world-class research facilities"??

So do others.

I never said that they didn't. Doesn't change the fact that the most
recent (2001) independent assessment of research in UK universities
ranks Cambridge and Oxford #1 and #2 respectively (the Universities of
Manchester and Birmingham, which you cited above, are ranked at #4 and
#5).

Predominantly Oxbridge has become
a clique of privately educated people,
who later in life only give jobs to those
who go to certain private schools and
went to Oxbridge.

"Has become"?

You are right. It should have been "always was".

.... here we go ... I see a Paxman quote coming up ...

This might have been
a true statement about Oxford and
Cambridge 40-50 years ago, but
is really not the case any more.

How naive. Read Jeremy Paxman's book. Most top jobs in this country are
filled with public school/Oxbridge.

Has it ever occured to you that this (even though its only partially
true) might actually be a good thing? Would you rather that we went
down the US route such that having money is the *only* criterion for
success in public life, and that to be a member of a "liberal
intellectual elite" is to be denigrated by the popular media? Or,
that we continue the Thatcher-Blair tradition in which decisions are
made purely on the basis of tabloid headlines and focus groups?

He points all this out.

Paxman's book is interesting, although there's nothing new in what he
writes, and his writing style is certainly inferior to his
interviewing.

In any case, in today's job market the
importance of the source (and
subject, and grade) of degree diminishes
rapidly - outside of graduate recruitment,
employers look for practical and successful
experience, skills, and knowledge rather
than baseline academic qualifications.

As a general case yes you are right in the real world. At the top, where
power is, it is very different. In certain key jobs in the judiciary,
foreign office, Whitehall, top staff of the military, it is nearly all
public school/Oxbridge with the odd non public school kid thrown in, who are
usually far brighter than the rest, as to be accepted into thre clan you
have to be brilliant; they can all be public school buffoons as long as they
went to the right school and have a silly puff like arcccent.

Undoubtedly true of some public schools (those where an ability to pay
very high fees is the only entry qualificiation). Sorry to burst your
Oxbridge balloon, though - it is decades since those universities
chose to (or were able) to admit students on any criterion other than
academic excellence -- even though both have fallen into the trap of
bad PR over the methods that they use to select amongst
equally-qualified school leavers (given that A-levels no longer
distinguish the exceptional).

In the
military it may be certain public schools and then straight into a certain
snotty usless chocolate soldier regiment.

I'd like to you say that to the face of any current or former member
of the Army who has served in Iraq, or Bosnia, or N Ireland, or ...
Which "chocolate solder regiment(s)" were you specifically referring
to?

It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent enough to
do these jobs.

Do tell us, then, what your qualifications are for a top position in
the civil service or the judiciary ...

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Grunff wrote:

IMM wrote:

So he says. Personally I thought he probably learnt what little he knows
from watching Bob the Builder.



ROFL. OH my God, snotty uni wit!


At the risk of provoking a large amount of verbal diarrhoea, what
exactly do you define as a snotty uni? Just Oxbridge? Redbricks? Or
just any uni that wasn't a poly up until 7 years ago?

Any uni he wanted to go to but wouldn't have him

Need you ask?


From here I just did a quick search: try www.jablite.co.uk
That site also mentions the availability of a technical guide for
Jablite.
It also mentions that "Jablite is produced for spans of 600 mm,
450 mm and 400 mm".
Therefore/ergo (how come there isn't a key for that three dot
symbol?) 1.5m (1500 mm) sounds like a large span?
Cheers Terry.

Terry wrote:

From here I just did a quick search: try www.jablite.co.uk

So did I - but it says nothing about stiffness.


That site also mentions the availability of a technical guide for
Jablite.

How useful of them to mention that.


It also mentions that "Jablite is produced for spans of 600 mm,
450 mm and 400 mm".
Therefore/ergo (how come there isn't a key for that three dot
symbol?) 1.5m (1500 mm) sounds like a large span?

Reasoning is flawed. The reason it's available in 400/450/600 is
because they are common rafter spacings. It's also avialable in
8'x4' sheets.

--
Grunff

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:46:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .

Most British uni's have been established
since WW2. We have approx 100 of
them.

Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes
in, and those unis who are older say they are
better in some way, with nothing to base this
absurd claim on.

Of course ... as long as you regard things
like Nobel Prizes as being "nothing".

They are pretty meaningless you are right.
BTW, Birmingham uni perfected RADAR in
WW2 and Manchester the computer after WW2,

Not sure about "perfected", but both institutions
made vital contributions to those technologies.
Fine universities, then and now.

What!! Manchester virtually alone developed the computer as we know it
today, called the Manchester Mk 1.

Also Liverpool uni invented radio with the first outside broadcast from the
tower of the redbrick building to the roof of Lewis's store. All essential
inventions that helped change the world. Yet snotty uni's still look down
on them.

the snotties were too
interested in teaching Ancient Greek.

... as well as the odd spot of research
in fundamentals of nuclear physics (Rutherford),
molecular biololgy (Crick & Watson), amongst
many others.

The "ancient" uni's,

They may be ancient, but that are not "uni's".
The word is "university".

uni in the trade me dear boy.

... and what "trade" would that be? Clearly one with a limited
command of the English language!

that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way.

"Perverse"? As in "provide superlative facilities for undergraduate
education together with world-class research facilities"??

So do others.

I never said that they didn't. Doesn't change
the fact that the most recent (2001) independent
assessment of research in UK universities
ranks Cambridge and Oxford #1 and #2
respectively (the Universities of Manchester
and Birmingham, which you cited above, are
ranked at #4 and #5).

They are well funded, over funded by government in that they have one to one
tuition. If every other uni had one to one tuition they would outstrip
these anachronisms. It has been argued that Oxbridge underperforms to the
level of funding.

Predominantly Oxbridge has become
a clique of privately educated people,
who later in life only give jobs to those
who go to certain private schools and
went to Oxbridge.

"Has become"?

You are right. It should have been "always was".

... here we go ... I see a Paxman quote coming up ...

You read ahead didn't you?

This might have been
a true statement about Oxford and
Cambridge 40-50 years ago, but
is really not the case any more.

How naive. Read Jeremy Paxman's book.
Most top jobs in this country are
filled with public school/Oxbridge.

Has it ever occured to you that this
(even though its only partially
true) might actually be a good thing?

You are having a laugh of course. No one with common sense or an ounce of
objectivity would conclude such a thing.

Would you rather that we went
down the US route such that having
money is the *only* criterion for
success in public life, and that to
be a member of a "liberal
intellectual elite" is to be denigrated
by the popular media?

Not ideal but far better than the class impregnated system of the British.
Compared to the USA, the US does not have a class system.

Or, that we continue the Thatcher-Blair tradition in
which decisions are made purely on
the basis of tabloid headlines and focus groups?

Grow up please. Thatcher promised a meritocracy. Paxman does point out
that those at the top of the gravy train: Oxbridge dons, judiciary,
mandarins, top military etc, were crapping themselves. She introduce the
odd non Oxbridge person here and there, but failed. The infiltration of
public school/Oxbridge into the UK corridors of power after she left was
hardly dented.

He points all this out.

Paxman's book is interesting, although there's
nothing new in what he writes, and his writing
style is certainly inferior to his interviewing.

He is the first to really look at who run the UK, and who are the greatest
benefactors. A clique of people who ran the UK for centuries will not let go
of power to the detriment of the people as a whole. It has to be forced from
them. Blair has kicked out the hereditories from the Lords, a great
achievement, and hopefully the thin edge of the wedge. They are making a
half hearted attempt to reduce the 50% intake to Oxbridge of privately
educated school kids, which is something but hardly enough. The real way is
to stop it at the top job recruiting stage. Currently a recruitment panel
full of public schoolie/Oxbridge's will naturally pick their own type in
accent, type of school etc. This has to stop.

In any case, in today's job market the
importance of the source (and
subject, and grade) of degree diminishes
rapidly - outside of graduate recruitment,
employers look for practical and successful
experience, skills, and knowledge rather
than baseline academic qualifications.

As a general case yes you are right in
the real world. At the top, where
power is, it is very different. In certain key
jobs in the judiciary, foreign office, Whitehall,
top staff of the military, it is nearly all
public school/Oxbridge with the odd non
public school kid thrown in, who are
usually far brighter than the rest, as to
be accepted into thre clan you
have to be brilliant; they can all be public
school buffoons as long as they
went to the right school and have a silly
puff like arcccent.

Undoubtedly true of some public schools
(those where an ability to pay very high fees
is the only entry qualificiation). Sorry to burst your
Oxbridge balloon, though - it is decades since
those universities chose to (or were able) to
admit students on any criterion other than
academic excellence -- even though both have
fallen into the trap of bad PR over the methods
that they use to select amongst equally-qualified
school leavers (given that A-levels no longer
distinguish the exceptional).

There are enough accademically bright kids from normal backgrunds, yet they
never make it past the interview as working class accent is heard. "Won't
fit in", one recuitment admin man from an Oxford collage once said to me.
Another said we only take the "best grades". I said "why is it that you
have a course wich may be one A and 2 Bs in "A" levels and you only take the
straight As?. Why don't you then say three As?".

What they were doing was listing all the applicants with 1 A and 2 Bs. Then
short listing all those with 3 As, then those with 2 As and one b, etc.
Then they would take off the top of the list the interview canidates. I
said once you have all applicant with minimum of 1 A and 2 Bs, then
accademic makes are then irelevant. They are all equal. Then the
interviewers should not be aware of what grades the candidates had and take
it from that point. After all anyone with 1 A and 2 Bs can cope with the
course. He never answered.

In the military it may be certain public
schools and then straight into a certain
snotty usless chocolate soldier regiment.

I'd like to you say that to the face of
any current or former member
of the Army who has served in Iraq, or
Bosnia, or N Ireland,

Most would agree with me. As most are normal people who are barred from the
top because the inbreeds run the military. Large land owning families tend
to have a member in the military top brass, to ensure the status quo. Any
messing about with their land owning gravy train may result in a military
coup. Wilson wanted to sort out the land problem but was curtailed by
rumours of coups. Tony Benn said Wilson regularly rang hi in the 1960/70s
with rumours of coups. The Mountbatten/Zuckerman attempt at drumming up a
coup is well documented.

or ... Which "chocolate
solder regiment(s)" were you specifically referring
to?

Any that protect the Queen. The only real proper fighting regiment we have
is the paras. They are dedicated to killing the enemy and proper
soldiering. Marching up and down with silly hats on is something they would
never do in a million years and look down on. Their record in fighting is
second to none (they did not surrender at Arnhem and only surrendered when
out of ammunition). They were created in WW2, out of a conscripted people's
army, to fight Germans, not keep an anachronism in power.

It appears to them that the rest of
us are not really intelligent enough to
do these jobs.

Do tell us, then, what your qualifications
are for a top position in
the civil service or the judiciary ...

I don't want a job in those fields. The point is that if I did I wouldn't
have a chance in hell, no matter how bright I was as I never went to a silly
public school or Oxbridge. Those essential roles are reserved for the Nice
Butt-Dims. BTW, the Sunday Times, under Andrew Neal had a campaign in the
early 1990s to rid the judiciary of the public school dominance. A picture
gallery and their backgrounds was printed. Little has changed.

It is clear that if the UK was a proper meritocracy and the land problem was
addressed the UK people would be the richest in the world. We carry a
millstone around our necks.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:



It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent enough

to

do these jobs.


How true.


This is typical of a snotty attitude. One of the prime reasons of the
economic decline of the UK is attributed to the public school grip on the
corridors of power. An army of Lions, etc, etc.



No, yu will find the economic decline exactly matches teh rise of people
like you to power.

If you can't tell a glossy pamphlet from reality, there is a tendencey
to build a society that like a glossy pamphlet,looks ever so pretty, but
turns into a soggy mess once it rains...



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Terry" wrote in message
...
snip

From here I just did a quick search: try www.jablite.co.uk
That site also mentions the availability of a technical guide for
Jablite.
It also mentions that "Jablite is produced for spans of 600 mm,
450 mm and 400 mm".
Therefore/ergo (how come there isn't a key for that three dot
symbol?)
Hold down the Alt key and type 0133 on numeric keypad or find it in the
Symbols Font and set a hot key for it.

Cheers,
Iain, in Bradford
1.5m (1500 mm) sounds like a large span?
Cheers Terry.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:



It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent
enough

to

do these jobs.


How true.


This is typical of a snotty attitude. One of the prime reasons of the
economic decline of the UK is attributed to the public school grip on
the
corridors of power. An army of Lions, etc, etc.



No, yu will find the economic decline exactly matches teh rise of people
like you to power.

If you can't tell a glossy pamphlet from reality, there is a tendencey
to build a society that like a glossy pamphlet,looks ever so pretty, but
turns into a soggy mess once it rains...

have you tried therapy?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:23:38 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


They are making a
half hearted attempt to reduce the 50% intake to Oxbridge of privately
educated school kids, which is something but hardly enough.



It's half hearted because to make too big an issue out of this would
expose the fact that prior to the introduction of comprehensive
education, the grammar schools provided substantial numbers of
students to Oxbridge such that in the 60s, over 60% of Oxbridge intake
was from the state sector.

The best of the state and direct grant grammar schools moved into the
private sector in the 70s and 80s which represents another factor as
to why Oxbridge intake appears to have shifted in favour of the
private sector; the other being the complete shambles and failure of
the comprehensive education system.

The result of that, in attempting to promote "fairness" has been that
very few kids actually receive an education appropriate to their needs
and abilities. Whether their needs are academic or vocational they
receive a dumbed down mediochrity that is a travesty of education as
it was a generation ago.

This leaves a situation where the parents of more academically able
children end up paying for private secondary education out of 40%
taxed income in addition to funding the broken state system and
practically bankrupting themselves. Even this only provides an
education that is as good as the state provided in the grammar schools
in the 60s.

Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Tinkering around with whether a higher or lower proportion of Oxbridge
or any other university entrants are from the public or private sector
is a distraction from the real issues.



Indeed. My secondary education was totally free. A process of selection
ensured that I was able to go to an exceptional school, and university.



Of course then, as now, there were soem ways that some rather

affluent people could get their sons

into Cambridge - the XYZ scholarship for theolgical students

from PQR public school etc, and Geography was always regarded as a pretty soft touch.


However the top end of the hard sciences and the classics was only open
to those with real ability.

I would say on balance that there was some advantage to having been
specifically coached for the entrance examinations, which biased entry
slightly in favour of those who went to schools specialising in getting
studenst to thoe top universities, but plenty of state educated people
were there in my day, and, by and large, they were the more gifted ones.
They had to be to get there.

Today, its once size fits all, and the deprivation is experienced most
by the better than average student, who has no fast track available
except via private education, and the significantly worse than average
student, who will probably drop out early.

Equality of opportunity has become zero choice and mediocrity for all.
In fact w enow inhabit a mediocracy, rather than a democracy, in which
society in its fdat attempt to be fair in a simple minded sort of way,
is now fair only to the simple minded.

The rules are made for fools, and enforced by fools, and reduce the
treatment of everyone to that of a marginal moron, so that marginal
morons won't feel slighted.

Big deal.

Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit. Bad schools will rapidly go out of business,
along with dodgy hospitals. AND if we feel that we want to pay a little
bit extra for semi private medical care or education, well we can,
without it costing double - once for he tax to pay for it, and again to
fully supply the education sadly lacking in the public sector.

Of course that wouldn't be 'fair'. Anymore than its fair that someone
who erans a living can buy better food than someone on the doel, afford
to live in slightly less squalor, or anything. But unless you turn
society into '1984', there will always be someone who by dint of
genetaic inheritance, or sheer accident of birth, happens to be nbetter
able to do something than someone else. I will never have Naomi Cambells
looks or figure. Should I therefore whinge about her 'privileges' and
demand equal rights for middle aged men to go on the catwalk?

In todays society, definitely I should.

However a saner society ought to realise that possibly the most apt
people to run a country are those who care about it, have the
intelligence and ability to do it, ahve recieved an education geraed
towards doing it, and no hidden private agendas. The Civilk Service used
to be stocked with such, but of course its now all political appointees
and spin doctors, and sadly the ability to get elected by a population
that has been so sorely misled as to the realities of managing or
running anything more complex than running a bath, leads to the election
of politicains whose qualififiactions are manifestly such that you
wowuldn't even wnat them to run your bath for you.

It has always been that way to an extent, but with Tactcher, and now
Blair, it has reached unseeen levels of utter idiocy.

And, to cap it all, IMM has found his way onto the Internet - something
built not by politicians, or with state maney, but by gifted and
talented individuals, many of whom went to snotty unis.

How galling. A true sign of the times.










.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


IMM wrote:




It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent

enough

to


do these jobs.


How true.


This is typical of a snotty attitude. One of the prime reasons of the
economic decline of the UK is attributed to the public school grip on

the

corridors of power. An army of Lions, etc, etc.



No, yu will find the economic decline exactly matches teh rise of people
like you to power.

If you can't tell a glossy pamphlet from reality, there is a tendencey
to build a society that like a glossy pamphlet,looks ever so pretty, but
turns into a soggy mess once it rains...


have you tried therapy?




Not since I became aware of agit-prop.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:23:38 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


They are making a
half hearted attempt to reduce the 50% intake to Oxbridge of privately
educated school kids, which is something but hardly enough.



It's half hearted because to make too big an issue out of this would
expose the fact that prior to the introduction of comprehensive
education, the grammar schools provided substantial numbers of
students to Oxbridge such that in the 60s, over 60% of Oxbridge intake
was from the state sector.

The best of the state and direct grant grammar schools moved into the
private sector in the 70s and 80s which represents another factor as
to why Oxbridge intake appears to have shifted in favour of the
private sector; the other being the complete shambles and failure of
the comprehensive education system.

The result of that, in attempting to promote "fairness" has been that
very few kids actually receive an education appropriate to their needs
and abilities. Whether their needs are academic or vocational they
receive a dumbed down mediochrity that is a travesty of education as
it was a generation ago.

This leaves a situation where the parents of more academically able
children end up paying for private secondary education out of 40%
taxed income in addition to funding the broken state system and
practically bankrupting themselves. Even this only provides an
education that is as good as the state provided in the grammar schools
in the 60s.

Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Little Middle England speaks again.... and what ********! Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery. I suppose you
want the 11 plus back again.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

That says it all.....



Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education to
the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much more
appropriate environment for academic learning than can be achieved in
a comprehensive school. Equally, a more vocationally or business
oriented school would be a more appropriate match for children with
abilities in those arreas. It is not a question of one of these
being better than the other - both would be able to achieve far better
results in their appropriate areas than the comprehensive system
achieves - the declining standards in both academic and vocational
education of the last generation illustrate the point graphically.

I suppose you
want the 11 plus back again.


Not in the form that it had when I did it. Nevertheless some form
of aptitude test is obviously required, based on examination and
continuous assessment.. Again this should not be viewed as a
pass/fail issue but as one of appropriateness. I think that this
should happen at 13 as is more common in the private sector, and then
there should be opportunities annually to switch schools if desired
and appropriate.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

That says it all.....

Exactly. But he did go a snotty uni though. I suppose there was something
that wasn't quite right, but we will forgive him. He made up it by
trouncing right wing idiot propaganda papers.

Grammar schools are all about
good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience.

What country have you been in all these years?

I suppose you
want the 11 plus back again.

Not in the form that it had when I did it.

But at 13, so a 13 plus. Some education authorities had 13 pluses and I
belive they were scrapped around 1965-65.

The comprehensive system is by far the best system by a mile. There are
some brilliant comps around. Grammar schools were all geared to non
technical subjects. One of the reasons we failed at industry.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:43:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

That says it all.....

Exactly. But he did go a snotty uni though. I suppose there was something
that wasn't quite right, but we will forgive him.

You may. I doubt if the electorate will.

He made up it by
trouncing right wing idiot propaganda papers.

He certainly made a lot of things up. !

Grammar schools are all about
good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience.


I suppose you
want the 11 plus back again.

Not in the form that it had when I did it.

But at 13, so a 13 plus. Some education authorities had 13 pluses and I
belive they were scrapped around 1965-65.

Change of school at 13-14 is quite common if you look at what other
countries do.

The comprehensive system is by far the best system by a mile.

The results do not bear that out.

There are
some brilliant comps around.

... and the majority are mediochre at best, as illustrated by the need
to lower standards to achieve a perception of achievement.

Grammar schools were all geared to non
technical subjects.

They certainly were not. Within the range of grammar schools there
were some that were more focussed on arts and humanities while others
focussed more on the sciences.

The selective schools, certainly from what I saw, did a good job of
vocational education.

One of the reasons we failed at industry.


Repeatedly messing around with the education system for political
dogma has been one factor. Lack of appropriate education to match the
children's abilities has been a second. Continuing to throw good
money after bad on a failed concept is a third.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:


Little Middle England speaks again.... and what ********! Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.



Which:-

(a) proves that top jobs are no lonfger he province of Oxbridge
garduates and

(b) shows what has been lost in the process.

In fact you offer complete proof of the thesis that comprehensive
schools prduce unpleasant ruthless self seeking people with no real
sense of responsibility and that is precisely who has teh upper hand at
teh moment.


Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery. I suppose you
want the 11 plus back again.



No, Comprehensive schools are all about good old English inverted snobbery.

I would say teh 11 plus was an extremely good way to make a broad brush
selection at 11. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

[46 lines snipped]


Indeed. My secondary education was totally free.


At the point of delivery. Someone, somewhere, paid for it. It was never
"free".

[12 lines snipped]

from PQR public school etc, and Geography was always regarded as a pretty soft touch.

PPE was always the dossers choice.


[28 lines snipped]


Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.


We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".





Then IMM would spend them all on drink. No they have to be specifically
allocated for 'education' or 'health'.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:43:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Rather than accepting that the comprehensive experiment is an
unmitigated disaster and restoring a system of schools appropriate
to
the students needs, the dogma is allowed to continue.

Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

That says it all.....

Exactly. But he did go a snotty uni though. I suppose there was
something
that wasn't quite right, but we will forgive him.

You may. I doubt if the electorate will.

He doesn't get elected. He is just the communications man of the
government. He doesn't, and never did despite what right wing tripe press
say, make decisions.

He made up it by
trouncing right wing idiot propaganda papers.

He certainly made a lot of things up. !

Not a thing. Even the ST said so today, noting his honesty.

There are
some brilliant comps around.

.. and the majority are mediochre at best,
as illustrated by the need
to lower standards to achieve a perception of achievement.

Better than silly grammar schools.

Continuing to throw good
money after bad on a failed concept is a third.

I know, grammar schools.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


Little Middle England speaks again.... and what ********! Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.



Which:-

(a) proves that top jobs are no lonfger he province of Oxbridge
garduates and

He went to Cambridge.

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery. I suppose
you
want the 11 plus back again.

No, Comprehensive schools are all about
good old English inverted snobbery.

Bahave!

I would say teh 11 plus was an extremely
good way to make a broad brush
selection at 11. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.

My God, my God!!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003