On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:33:17 +0000, Capitol
wrote:




The UK problem is local population density and lack of a good
infrastructure. I am told that Loch Ness has sufficient water to cover
the whole of the UK to a depth of 6", just move it about a bit!


That wouldn't be any good. Where would Nessie go?


--

..andy

why dont people understand that water will dissapear in the future,
some people dont care, they care if water is there, they can waste it
until one day it will be scarced

So think about, LOOK AT THE FUTURE !!!!!

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:23:43 UTC, "daniel" wrote:

why dont people understand that water will dissapear in the future,

Where will it go?
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

wrote:
So how can you be so sure of the outcome?

Note the use of the language "probably", "in some scenarios", "in
others". As usual no allowance is made for yet another scenario in
which global warming will have minimal impact on the planet.

Indeed: I'm not "so sure of the outcome". If you know of a model which
does suggest "minimal impact on the planet" do let me know. All the
models I'm aware of are scary, though in a variety of different ways.

Douglas de Lacey

On 2006-02-23, daniel wrote:
why dont people understand that water will dissapear in the future,
some people dont care, they care if water is there, they can waste it
until one day it will be scarced

So think about, LOOK AT THE FUTURE !!!!!

If you are actually concerned about _wasted_ water supplies
why don't you target Thames Water who are responsible for
roughly 1/4 of the 3.6 billion litres per day that was lost
last year (2004-5).
In context, this total (3.6Bl/day) is the water usage of about
24 million people in the UK.

While fixing a dripping tap here, or not flushing the loo
(yuk!) may make you feel you are contributing, it makes virtually no
difference when you look at the bigger picture.

[source: Ofwat report for 2004 - 2005 , p28-29
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/leakage_04-05.pdf/$FILE/leakage_04-05.pdf ]

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

Peter Lynch wrote:
On 2006-02-23, daniel wrote:

why dont people understand that water will dissapear in the future,
some people dont care, they care if water is there, they can waste it
until one day it will be scarced

So think about, LOOK AT THE FUTURE !!!!!


If you are actually concerned about _wasted_ water supplies
why don't you target Thames Water who are responsible for
roughly 1/4 of the 3.6 billion litres per day that was lost
last year (2004-5).

Why does it have to be either/or? Daniel may not be in the strongest
position to get Thames Water to listen to him (living as he does in the
antipodes) -- perhaps *you* ought to? Anglia get the odd earful from me.
It's a bit like this morning's R4 debate about green transport. It was
all hyping bio-fuels, in the hope that a 5% bio-fuel mix could save 1.5%
of emissions. We could *easily* save that much simply by persuading
people to walk or cycle to work for just one week in the year -- but
that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage bio-fuels too.

Douglas de Lacey

In article ,
Douglas de Lacey wrote:
wrote:
So how can you be so sure of the outcome?

Note the use of the language "probably", "in some scenarios", "in
others". As usual no allowance is made for yet another scenario in
which global warming will have minimal impact on the planet.

Indeed: I'm not "so sure of the outcome". If you know of a model which
does suggest "minimal impact on the planet" do let me know. All the
models I'm aware of are scary, though in a variety of different ways.

Whilst it's possible that one extreme of the range of probable futures may
include minimal impact the far liklier scenario is something else. As the
likely future requires us to take action now (it might have been easier had we
started 100 years ago) to avoid unacceptable extremes, I cannot see any
argument for taking note of only the 'minimum impact' model.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Peter Lynch wrote:
On 2006-02-23, daniel wrote:




If you are actually concerned about _wasted_ water supplies
why don't you target Thames Water who are responsible for roughly 1/4 of
the 3.6 billion litres per day that was lost
last year (2004-5).

Why does it have to be either/or? Daniel may not be in the strongest
position to get Thames Water to listen to him (living as he does in the
antipodes) -- perhaps *you* ought to? Anglia get the odd earful from me.

My approach was also to buy shares. That way I get the actual reports, not
from the media (the editing and choosing of which I distrust). It also gives
me a second string to my bow, I can ask questions or bend ears not just as a
consumer.

As a result, to date I have no complaints of and plenty of approval for my
water supplier.That wouldn't havebeen the case if I'd believed what seems to
be the received wisdom.

It's a bit like this morning's R4 debate about green transport. It was all
hyping bio-fuels, in the hope that a 5% bio-fuel mix could save 1.5% of
emissions. We could *easily* save that much simply by persuading people to
walk or cycle to work for just one week in the year -- but that doesn't
mean we shouldn't encourage bio-fuels too.

That item exemplified my opinion of the media. I wouldn't have called it a
debate. 'Today' gives a very short time to topics and the interviewers keep
interrupting and putting their own views without allowing answers to their
first questions. I wouldn't agree to be interviewed on there for anything.

Mary

Douglas de Lacey

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
wrote:


We dont really know what will happen in 100 years.

And that is the nub of the problem. For far too long we have assumed that
"science" can get us out of any and every mess (see for instance Alec
Broers' breathtakingly arrogant Reith Lectures)

Heavens! I didn't think anyone else had listened.It was hard work.

Harvesting water and building piplines between areas in the UK is not
science at all. It is just sensible engineering.

The UK has more water than what it can use. So let's use it and stop acting
like silly buggers preserving it.

wrote in message
ups.com...
In the UK many people dont care about what happens in the future, in
present ,Australia is lacking of water, the government ignored this
problem until now.

i dont think many of you think about the future, but most of you might
want to think about it now, before its to late......

Exactly. You don't have water, we do. We are on about water shortages here
in the UK, in a country with more water than what it can use. We should be
looking into building reservoirs and pipelines, not putting buckets in
showers.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:33:17 +0000, Capitol
wrote:

The UK problem is local population density and lack of a good
infrastructure. I am told that Loch Ness has sufficient water to cover
the whole of the UK to a depth of 6", just move it about a bit!

That wouldn't be any good. Where would Nessie go?

Wokingham?

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:36:37 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:33:17 +0000, Capitol
wrote:

The UK problem is local population density and lack of a good
infrastructure. I am told that Loch Ness has sufficient water to cover
the whole of the UK to a depth of 6", just move it about a bit!

That wouldn't be any good. Where would Nessie go?

Wokingham?


There isn't a large enough lake.....


--

..andy

millions of people waste water in UK but many of them care if water is
there and they can use it for they daily issues.

The fact is , they have water now ,but later water it will be wasted
because of there careless usage of water

the qustion i have longed for is "DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE
USAGE OF WATER?"

regards daniel

On 26 Feb 2006 16:33:15 -0800, "daniel" wrote:

millions of people waste water in UK but many of them care if water is
there and they can use it for they daily issues.

The fact is , they have water now ,but later water it will be wasted
because of there careless usage of water

the qustion i have longed for is "DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE
USAGE OF WATER?"

regards daniel


In most cases, no.


--

..andy

In message .com,
daniel writes
millions of people waste water in UK but many of them care if water is
there and they can use it for they daily issues.

The fact is , they have water now ,but later water it will be wasted
because of there careless usage of water

the qustion i have longed for is "DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE
USAGE OF WATER?"

Pharmacist closed on Sunday ?

never mind, its Monday tomorrow

Then you can ask yourself about the water lost before it gets to the
consumer


--
geoff

Then you can ask yourself about the water lost before it gets to the
consumer

its the consumer wasting the water

On 26 Feb 2006 17:04:09 -0800, "daniel" wrote:

Then you can ask yourself about the water lost before it gets to the
consumer

its the consumer wasting the water


Check again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681211.stm

The other point is that the consumer is *paying* for the water.



--

..andy

daniel wrote:

the qustion i have longed for is "DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE
USAGE OF WATER?"


OK, I can assuage your longing. DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE USAGE
OF WATER?

If you want to make genuine contributions here I suggest you address the
points made, and take a bit more care of your grammar.

Douglas de Lacey

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 26 Feb 2006 17:04:09 -0800, "daniel" wrote:

Then you can ask yourself about the water lost before it gets to the
consumer

its the consumer wasting the water


Check again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681211.stm

The other point is that the consumer is *paying* for the water.

And if it said it on the BBC it MUST be100% fact.

chortle

Mary



--

.andy

In message . com,
daniel writes
Then you can ask yourself about the water lost before it gets to the
consumer

its the consumer wasting the water

Did anyone actually write anything there ?

--
geoff

huh ?

In message . com,
daniel writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context

--
geoff

Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

i.e. click click

Grumble


"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com, daniel
writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context

--
geoff

In message , Grumble
writes
Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

i.e. click click

Grumble


Do **** off, don't top post and learn how to post

If your reply doesn't refer to anything it is meaningless

Why should I look back to see what you are referring to when standard
netiquette dictates that you reply in context

you utter utter ******


"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com, daniel
writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context

--
geoff



--
geoff

In article
Grumble wrote:
Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

Get a clue about Usenet standards, and why they are used.

Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Grumble
writes
Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

i.e. click click

Grumble


Do **** off, don't top post and learn how to post

If your reply doesn't refer to anything it is meaningless

Why should I look back to see what you are referring to when standard
netiquette dictates that you reply in context

you utter utter ******


"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com,
daniel
writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context

--
geoff



--
geoff

In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

Sorry, I've been here a fair long while and intend to stay newbie boi

now, learn to post correctly or **** off


--
geoff

Oh dear, You seem a little immature. Mummy not watching you? I wonder what
she'll say when she finds out you've been using naughty words.




"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

Sorry, I've been here a fair long while and intend to stay newbie boi

now, learn to post correctly or **** off


--
geoff

In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

To quote from a posting in another thread ...

"Firstly,

.... ...

Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top, not the bottom
- this allows judicious snipping of irrelevant stuff and the
interjection of comments. I would expect all good newsreaders (and some
rubbish ones) to place the cursor at the top.

Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid, ignorant, young or a
combination of all three. Their posts are also so rarely worth reading
that it's not worth worth bothering about any of them. "

hits the nail on the head, I think



"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Grumble
writes
Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

i.e. click click

Grumble


Do **** off, don't top post and learn how to post

If your reply doesn't refer to anything it is meaningless

Why should I look back to see what you are referring to when standard
netiquette dictates that you reply in context

you utter utter ******


"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com,
daniel
writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context


--
geoff

Ah! I see you've refrained from using profanities. You see how much better
it is when you use more pleasant language when writing.

"Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top..."

"Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid..."

Pardon?



"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

To quote from a posting in another thread ...

"Firstly,

... ...

Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top, not the bottom -
this allows judicious snipping of irrelevant stuff and the interjection of
comments. I would expect all good newsreaders (and some rubbish ones) to
place the cursor at the top.

Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid, ignorant, young or a combination
of all three. Their posts are also so rarely worth reading that it's not
worth worth bothering about any of them. "

hits the nail on the head, I think



"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Grumble
writes
Get a clue how to switch on thread history...

i.e. click click

Grumble


Do **** off, don't top post and learn how to post

If your reply doesn't refer to anything it is meaningless

Why should I look back to see what you are referring to when standard
netiquette dictates that you reply in context

you utter utter ******


"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com,
daniel
writes
huh ?

Antipodean academic are we ?

get a clue how to post ...

i.e. context


--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

Sorry, I've been here a fair long while and intend to stay newbie boi

now, learn to post correctly or **** off

Oh dear, it happens here too, does it? I must say that I admire your
restraint ;-)

The message
from "Grumble" contains these words:

Ah! I see you've refrained from using profanities. You see how much better
it is when you use more pleasant language when writing.

"Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top..."

"Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid..."

Pardon?

That's not neccessarily contradictory - it just implies that the cursor
starts at the top and you move it down deleting paragraphs or whatever
as you go.

I prefer the "Highlight the bit you're replying to, then click reply"
idea, which in Zimacs leaves only the selected bit with the cursor at
the bottom - if you've ticked the "cursor at the bottom" box on the
setup page.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

In message , Grumble
writes
Ah! I see you've refrained from using profanities. You see how much better
it is when you use more pleasant language when writing.

"Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top..."

"Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid..."

Pardon?

Still too stupid to understand, aren't you

--
geoff

In message , Grumble
writes
Ah! I see you've refrained from using profanities. You see how much better
it is when you use more pleasant language when writing.

Sorry, I don't do pleasant to retards

If you want pleasant, stop being a retard


"Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top..."

"Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid..."

Pardon?


OK here's another post from another thread here

The news.newusers.questions FAQ http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html How
to post to uk news groups http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html Proper
quoting style explained http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html


--
geoff

In message ,
Beelzebub writes
"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Grumble
writes
Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

Sorry, I've been here a fair long while and intend to stay newbie boi

now, learn to post correctly or **** off

Oh dear, it happens here too, does it? I must say that I admire your
restraint ;-)

I used to send top posters flowers ...

until I joined UKRM

--
geoff

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:02:38 +0000 (UTC), "Grumble"
wrote:

Ah! I see you've refrained from using profanities. You see how much better
it is when you use more pleasant language when writing.

"Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top..."

"Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid..."

Pardon?



See what I mean?

--

Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side.

In article , Grumble
wrote:

Yes, yes, yes, now do run away and play. Thats a good boy.

You don't want to communicate then? Fine...

*plonk*

--
AJL

isn't this conversation about water saving

In article .com, daniel
wrote:

isn't this conversation about water saving

No idea, you have not provided any context.


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk