On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:44:47 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping generalisations
by posting a sweeping generalisation has effectively kneecapped themself
before entering an arse kicking contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does rather
put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. However, I
may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part of
the time is being admired. That would fit judging from the behaviour
of many in this country.

You may want to get your head out of your arse someday. You could start
by readign what was written, rather than knee-jerking over what you
think was written.

You really are a charmer. I am very impressed. I 'm sorry about your
manners.

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:44:47 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki
were paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation
they have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping
generalisations by posting a sweeping generalisation has
effectively kneecapped themself before entering an arse kicking
contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does
rather put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. However,
I may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part
of the time is being admired. That would fit judging from the
behaviour of many in this country.

You may want to get your head out of your arse someday. You could
start by readign what was written, rather than knee-jerking over what
you think was written.

You really are a charmer. I am very impressed. I 'm sorry about your
manners.

You really are a drooling ****wad. I am not impressed. I'm sorry someone
let you into the gene pool.

On 16 ñÎ, 08:57, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Edward W. Thompson wrote:





On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:44:47 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki
were paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation
they have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping
generalisations by posting a sweeping generalisation has
effectively kneecapped themself before entering an arse kicking
contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does
rather put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. šHowever,
I may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part
of the time is being admired. šThat would fit judging from the
behaviour of many in this country.

You may want to get your head out of your arse someday. You could
start by readign what was written, rather than knee-jerking over what
you think was written.

You really are a charmer. šI am very impressed. šI 'm sorry about your
manners.

You really are a drooling ****wad. I am not impressed. I'm sorry someone
let you into the gene pool.- óËÒÉ×ÁÎÅ ÎÁ ÃÉÔÉÒÁÎÉÑ ÔÅËÓÔ -

- ðÏËÁÚ×ÁÎÅ ÎÁ ÃÉÔÉÒÁÎÉÑ ÔÅËÓÔ -

You can download a usefull program for design a wind turbine. It is
easy to use: http://www.partenovcfd.com/software.html

wrote:

You can download a usefull program for design a wind turbine. It is
easy to use:

**** off spam boy.

In message , Edward W.
Thompson writes
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:44:47 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:33:42 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Depends how ****ed they are. Most of the Finns I met in Helsinki were
paralytic for a substantial part of the time.

It's that sort of remark that gives the 'British' the reputation they
have.

Of course anyone who attempts to moralise about sweeping generalisations
by posting a sweeping generalisation has effectively kneecapped themself
before entering an arse kicking contest.

Posting an ad hominem as a sequitur to the generalisation does rather
put the complainant outside the pale.

Interesting comment to try to justify what are very distasteful
remarks about 'foreigners'.

You may think it smart to analyse in detail what has been posted but
to many the impression given is one of disdain for others. However, I
may be mistaken and being paralytic (drunk) for a substantial part of
the time is being admired. That would fit judging from the behaviour
of many in this country.

You may want to get your head out of your arse someday. You could start
by readign what was written, rather than knee-jerking over what you
think was written.

You really are a charmer. I am very impressed. I 'm sorry about your
manners.

Or, as someone replied to a similar numpty in the BHHH elist

"If you read my email replying to your email you would see:
"see http://typhoon.he.net/~true/hhh/ for a more detailed explanation"
Grrr, don't be so thick. Do you know what Google is?

We sing dirty songs and say bad words. If it offends you, don't
participate."


--
geoff

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:33:46 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

Other arguments that ministers will advance this week are as flawed
as their economics. We will be told that we need the atom to avoid
dangerous dependency on overseas energy – especially Russian gas.
But analysis done for the Government's energy White Paper shows that
by 2020 – the earliest any new reactor could come online – gas
supplies will be more, not less secure, coming from a diversity of
countries.

Bull****, the only secure supplies are those within your own control.
The UK is, as a result of the dip**** four - Thatcher, Parkinson,
Walker and Wakeham forever ****ed in that regard.

And as most gas is used in industrial processes and
heating homes, nuclear power – which produces only electricity – can
do little to replace it.

More bull****, there are very few industrial processes that expressly
require natural gas.


--

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:51:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Solar power is also taking off in a big way (I heard
grid parity in some countries).

Pure unadulterated bull****.

......but for truly remote areas of the world it may be true, however
penguins, yaks and hairy mammoths have little call for electricity.




--

Matt wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:33:46 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

Other arguments that ministers will advance this week are as flawed
as their economics. We will be told that we need the atom to avoid
dangerous dependency on overseas energy � especially Russian gas.
But analysis done for the Government's energy White Paper shows that
by 2020 � the earliest any new reactor could come online � gas
supplies will be more, not less secure, coming from a diversity of
countries.

Bull****, the only secure supplies are those within your own control.
The UK is, as a result of the dip**** four - Thatcher, Parkinson,
Walker and Wakeham forever ****ed in that regard.

And as most gas is used in industrial processes and
heating homes, nuclear power � which produces only electricity � can
do little to replace it.

More bull****, there are very few industrial processes that expressly
require natural gas.

Almost none. Its convenient, but not mandatory.

Heating with arcs and fans is pretty efficient really.


There are a few process that use carbon to reduce things -steelmaking is
one.

But mostly what you want is heat, and gas, oil or coke is cheaper than
electricity..at the moment.


I am not sure that it would really take 13 years to get a new reactor up
and running, if people were prepared to pay more for it.

But 6-8 is certainly a practical minimum.

Which is probably why we may see some coal fired stations being built.

Those of us who remember blackouts and fuel shoratges of the 70's had
best start reminding people.

Matt wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:51:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Solar power is also taking off in a big way (I heard
grid parity in some countries).

Pure unadulterated bull****.

.....but for truly remote areas of the world it may be true, however
penguins, yaks and hairy mammoths have little call for electricity.




Well it depends on wht you eman by 'big wy'

IIRC the Israelis use it to desalinate water for irrigation on quite a
large scale.

There's a solar furnace somewhere in the USA desert..

Given the right application and the right location, it has its place.

Sadly its next to useless in the UK.

Might be useful to run aircon..abut the only application that needs more
power the hotter it gets.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

I am not sure that it would really take 13 years to get a new reactor up
and running, if people were prepared to pay more for it.

Was listening to something about this on the radio a month or
so back. A significant issue is that we no longer have a nuclear
industry to build any reactors like we did in the past -- we no
longer have the likes of GEC and similar industries. Building up
such an industry is a non-starter in any reasonable timescale.
With nuclear demand increasing throughout the world, there's
already a significant waiting list on new orders at the moment.
Apparently the french have recently ordered another 5 or something
like that too. We could just carry on paying the french to build
them along their north coast for us, like we have been doing for
some time now, but we don't control those.

But 6-8 is certainly a practical minimum.

Which is probably why we may see some coal fired stations being built.

There probably is no other option if we are to keep the lights on.

Those of us who remember blackouts and fuel shoratges of the 70's had
best start reminding people.

I remember well -- I was at school at the time and thought it
was great fun. OTOH, part of my company has been hit by the
rolling blackouts in California in more recent years, and it
costs us about $1M per minute.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
I am not sure that it would really take 13 years to get a new reactor up
and running, if people were prepared to pay more for it.

Was listening to something about this on the radio a month or
so back. A significant issue is that we no longer have a nuclear
industry to build any reactors like we did in the past -- we no
longer have the likes of GEC and similar industries. Building up
such an industry is a non-starter in any reasonable timescale.
With nuclear demand increasing throughout the world, there's
already a significant waiting list on new orders at the moment.
Apparently the french have recently ordered another 5 or something
like that too. We could just carry on paying the french to build
them along their north coast for us, like we have been doing for
some time now, but we don't control those.

But 6-8 is certainly a practical minimum.

Which is probably why we may see some coal fired stations being built.

There probably is no other option if we are to keep the lights on.

Those of us who remember blackouts and fuel shoratges of the 70's had
best start reminding people.

I remember well -- I was at school at the time and thought it
was great fun. OTOH, part of my company has been hit by the
rolling blackouts in California in more recent years, and it
costs us about $1M per minute.

Gosh. A couple of weeks and that will *pay* for a nuclear set...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:56 +0000 someone who may be Matt
wrote this:-

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:33:46 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

I doubt it. I may have quoted it however.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54