harry wrote:

Remember Senghenydd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senghenydd#Coal_mining

I was not familiar with it. Thank you.

A little before my time however, so I don't remember it!

Andy

harry wrote:

I would interested to know where I can see a Moa.

Well, you can't, because they ain't no moa. (boom boom tisch!)

Andy

harry wrote:
The incidence of cancer was higher amongst Concorde crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord...ation_exposure

That link does not provide any support for your statement, merely that
there was a fear that it might.

Do you have any that do? I can't find one, as it's hidden behind Dr
Alex Concorde the specialist and Concorde grape juice being good for
prevention!

Andy

-"harry" wrote in message
...
-On 8 Aug, 14:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





harry wrote:
On 8 Aug, 10:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative. The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the
USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation
all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)
Quite right. Why do you suppose there has always been people died of
cancer?
The more you get, the greater chance of getting cancer.

The greatest cause of cancer is the oxygen you breathe.It is carefully
transported around the body and delivered to your cells where combustion
takes place, and energy is produced. Some of the by product of this is
oxygen radicals that are *highly* reactive chemically and attack your
DNA. This causes damage. Fortunately all cells have repair mechanisms
that fix this damage up, continually. Above a certain level of damage,
however, these mechanisms can't cope. And for reasons I won't go into,
this gets worse as you get older.

Radiation splits up water molecules and produces the same sort of oxygen
radicals, which is why the damage is similar. Below a certain radiation
level, the body copes. Above it, it can't. That's why Linear no
Threshold is cobblers.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-Another hypothesis here says the exact opposite.
-http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/55/8/1617.short

It would hardly be surprising that free radical formation can kill cancerous
cells although if you read later papers that cite the one above you will see
that the methodology used above does not prevent tumour growth in a whole
body system although there do seem to be some interesting effects when the
oxygen radical is combined with poly ethylene glycol. Of course a man, like
yourself, with such a vast scientific background will know that modeling an
effect in mice (*) does not actually mean there will be as much of an effect
when used clinicaly.

The low end of all dose response curves has always been difficult to draw as
there are legitimate differences in the way that models are drawn in order
to compensate for a lack of definite knowledge of the effects of low doses
(of compund or radiation) - there is a general acceptance that there is no
threshold for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects this does not mean that
there is a straight line relationship between dose and response - but there
is a lack of evidence for extremely low dose response curves due to the
difficulty in identifying the actual causes of harm in the large population
sizes needed to gather such data.

Cheers

Mark

(*)I may be unusual here in actually having conducted animal studies into
carcinogenicity - although I don't do this anymore.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 8 Aug, 12:46, harry wrote:
On 8 Aug, 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 20:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.
Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.
Owain
There is no such device. Nor will there be.
There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afraid not. The nuclear sub has the sea for cooling pirposes. Not
available to any "portable device".

Are you really as stupid as you seem, or its it just an act?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am a technocrat. Not a feeble minded old retard masquerading as an
oracle.

technocrat????? FFS read sentence 3 of your link to the concorde
radiation hysteria "proof" post again.....

doh OK for the record:-

Context on
"However, due to the proportionally reduced flight time, the overall
equivalent dose would normally be less than a conventional flight over
the same distance.[71] "
context off

Jim K

"geoff" wrote in message
...


But you seem to be the least educated (in the conventional sense) of those
participating in this discussion

That would be you, by a short head to TMH.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


But you seem to be the least educated (in the conventional sense) of
those participating in this discussion

That would be you, by a short head to TMH.


Honours degree in physics dennis - I don't think so

In the real world that trumps an HNC or whatever 'arald has

As usual - you are wrong, retard

--
geoff

On 8 Aug, 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevber mind I'll toss a cambridge honours degree in the bin then,.

aha ;)

bet you keep a copy of the alumnus in your bog too??

Jim K

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Nevber mind I'll toss a cambridge honours degree in the bin then,.


Ha, ha, I know Cambridge was overrated but that claim is silly.

Andy Champ wrote:
harry wrote:
The incidence of cancer was higher amongst Concorde crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord...ation_exposure

That link does not provide any support for your statement, merely that
there was a fear that it might.

Do you have any that do? I can't find one, as it's hidden behind Dr
Alex Concorde the specialist and Concorde grape juice being good for
prevention!

Andy

Read all about LNT here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

What emerges if you read it from a balanced perspective was that when
standards for radiological exposure had to be implemented, they picked
LNT as a model on which to base them. There never was, and never has
been, strong evidence to show that LNT is an accurate model of low to
moderate radiation exposure. Indeed results from random sampling and of
course Chernobyl, suggests it grossly overstates the impact of chronic
low level radiation.

HOWEVER standards had to be set, and the LNT model was the worst anyone
felt it could possibly be, so if we stuck to that public safety was
assured. And importantly, it shut everyone up. It was essentially as
stringent as anyone felt it needed to be.In politics a decisions that
halts argument, is a good one. And the nuclear industry felt it could
easily (if expensively) reach the standards, and the kit was designed to
those standards.


Now Dennis, or harry or whatever claims he worked in the NHS, where he
would have had this drummed into him as a safety standard, and being a
few candles short of a light bulb. believes that the model on which the
standards are based to have more than *political* validity. The short
answer to why radiologists wear lead aprons is of course politics: To
protect the NHS from being sued when someone gets a deformed kid or
testicular cancer, on the grounds that they were frightened by an X-ray
machine, without lead underpants on, once, in 1972.

There is almost no scientific evidence one way or another as to what the
cumulative effects of low level radiation a It is just possible to
detect cancer rates above average around radon areas, but the amount of
radioactivity that represents is many many times higher than normal
background, and about 1000 times the safe doses that nuclear industry
workers or the public are exposed to.

Cohen claimed in his 1995 paper
(http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/LNT-1995.PDF) that lower level radon
radiation actually REDUCED the risks of lung cancer. And managed to find
more evidence to support it than exists for the LNT model, although his
results are widely ignored.

What is significant about Wade Allison, apart from the fact he wrote a
book, which presumably makes money

(http://www.radiationandreason.com/)

is that he is also a qualified medical professor of physics. With
slightly more than an HNC in electrical machines, from 1967...This is
essentially his field, and he has made it his business to study it.

Whether he and Cohen are just mavericks trying to make names for
themselves by swimming against the politically correct tide or whether
they are in fact simply uncovering the reality of the rather less than
horrifying dangers of low level radiation, is a moot point.

There is a lot of money to be made in energy of any sort, and FUD is
rampant.

What is a fact, is that LNT, the theory on which radiological safety
standards have been set most conservatively, has never been supported by
any evidence whatsoever. Such evidence as DOES exist tends to refute it,
but short of having half a dozen Chernobyls and a few million people to
do the experiment with, it's unlikely we ever will be able to prove it
or entirely refute it.

Mark Spice wrote:

The low end of all dose response curves has always been difficult to
draw as there are legitimate differences in the way that models are
drawn in order to compensate for a lack of definite knowledge of the
effects of low doses (of compund or radiation) - there is a general
acceptance that there is no threshold for carcinogenic or mutagenic
effects

I am afraid that there is not even such agreement as that.


this does not mean that there is a straight line relationship
between dose and response - but there is a lack of evidence for
extremely low dose response curves due to the difficulty in identifying
the actual causes of harm in the large population sizes needed to gather
such data.


See Cohen, one of a few who say that almost complete absence or
radiation is bad for you and causes cancers :-)


The jury is very much still out.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mark Spice wrote:

The low end of all dose response curves has always been difficult to draw
as there are legitimate differences in the way that models are drawn in
order to compensate for a lack of definite knowledge of the effects of
low doses (of compund or radiation) - there is a general acceptance that
there is no threshold for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects

I am afraid that there is not even such agreement as that.


To tell the truth that was actually cribbed out of a text-book (Toxicology
4th Edition Casserett & Doull) although this in now in it's 7th edition so
the version I have may well be out of date in this area. That being said it
just goes to show that theories are subject to revision.

Personally I have always been suspicious of graphs that seek to show
extrapolated dose/response relationships as the line drawn always seems to
have some relationship to the employerof the author - ie those funded by big
business and the like are more likely to adopt models that indicate a higher
threshold whereas those drawn by 'green' funded organisations always seem to
tend to the most apocalyptic result. That is not to say that the data is
fudged but that the choice of model can be adjusted to suit the
preconceptions required.

this does not mean that there is a straight line relationship
between dose and response - but there is a lack of evidence for extremely
low dose response curves due to the difficulty in identifying the actual
causes of harm in the large population sizes needed to gather such data.


See Cohen, one of a few who say that almost complete absence or radiation
is bad for you and causes cancers :-)


The jury is very much still out.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

of HNC
Just slightly less than a degree.

No, that would apply to an HND, back then.

On Aug 8, 11:07 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:15 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Well, you only need look at the Danes to see what long term exposure does..

Blond hair, good looks, ability to build ships and weapons and conquer
the barbarian world? Where's the downside?

Well they were then, and their descendants are now, parasites. They just
moaned and waved weapons till someone gave them some money. The only way
their women COULD get pregnant was to send them off in a gang for days
on end, and when they came back, get them ****ed and put sacks on their
own heads.

Tyneside is like that to this day.

I think you are being a bit harsh. The Viking DNA added to that of the
Scots led to the great engineering feats of the Scots. There's Viking
DNA around the world, including here in NZ. My Viking ancestors
actually married my Scottish ancestors, unlike the people you must be
talking about!

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


But you seem to be the least educated (in the conventional sense) of
those participating in this discussion

That would be you, by a short head to TMH.


Honours degree in physics dennis - I don't think so

You don't think what?
That I do have a physics degree or something else.


In the real world that trumps an HNC or whatever 'arald has

Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they just
couldn't think!


As usual - you are wrong,

--
retard; geoff

Fixed your sig for you BTW.

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

of HNC
Just slightly less than a degree.

No, that would apply to an HND, back then.

Perhaps. No real measure.

If you take IEE membership requirements, ISTR HND or degree was
sufficient.

HNC with an endorsement in engineering Physics only entitled you to sit
their part 3 exam which in 1964 was a further years study.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
But you seem to be the least educated (in the conventional sense)
of those participating in this discussion

That would be you, by a short head to TMH.


Honours degree in physics dennis - I don't think so

You don't think what?
That I do have a physics degree or something else.

Not talking about you, stupid - unless you really are harold



In the real world that trumps an HNC or whatever 'arald has

Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.

No that's PhDs you retard

We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting

Aah that's how you got a job then

as they just couldn't think!

A first degree is very much about teaching people HOW to think

Now, why didn't you know that ?

I have a track record and a successful business

not a redundant old fart like yourself



As usual - you are wrong,

-- retard; geoff

Fixed your sig for you BTW.

It was OK as it was thank you, ****forbrains

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they just
couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they just
couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs because
they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?


--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?

Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

--
Adam

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they just
couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?

The difference between the two being what exactly ?

"We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting"

Amusing that you say "we" as if you were part of it

The other answer being that the jobs on offer weren't of a high enough
standard to require someone with a degree

stop digging now, you'll never get out of the hole retard


--
geoff

In message dqY8o.96439$Y21.19319@hurricane, ARWadsworth
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?

Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message dqY8o.96439$Y21.19319@hurricane, ARWadsworth
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?

Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10


He can do decimal points if he takes his pants off. 0.25cm is better than
nothing.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message dqY8o.96439$Y21.19319@hurricane, ARWadsworth
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!

I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused
You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?
Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10


He can do decimal points if he takes his pants off. 0.25cm is better than
nothing.


That was a little bit below the belt,....

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
ARWadsworth wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message dqY8o.96439$Y21.19319@hurricane, ARWadsworth
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!

I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused
You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?
Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10
He can do decimal points if he takes his pants off. 0.25cm is
better than nothing.


That was a little bit below the belt,....

A very little bit ...

--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message dqY8o.96439$Y21.19319@hurricane, ARWadsworth
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting
for.. maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!

I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused
You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?
Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10


He can do decimal points if he takes his pants off. 0.25cm is better
than nothing.


That was a little bit below the belt,....

Is it fractional?
--
Adam

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they just
couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?

The difference between the two being what exactly ?

"We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting"

Amusing that you say "we" as if you were part of it

The other answer being that the jobs on offer weren't of a high enough
standard to require someone with a degree

stop digging now, you'll never get out of the hole retard


You are still too thick to understand it then!

In message , Tim
Streater writes
I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused
You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?
You really just can't read can you?
Were you in charge of paper clip deliveries?

C'mon now - that would require an ability to count

dennis would have to take his shoes off to count above 10


He can do decimal points if he takes his pants off. 0.25cm is better
than nothing.


That was a little bit below the belt,....
Is it fractional?

Irrational more like.

Dennis - irrational man of mystery


--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Well yes it does if its theoretical stuff you are recruiting for..
maybe not if you want practical ability.
We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting as they
just couldn't think!


I just realised -

either you haven't got a degree

or you haven't a clue

Marconi, wasn't it ?

I remember that there was a time when Marconi didn't recruit PhDs
because they were too specialised

Maybe that's where you are getting confused

You are the one that's confused as usual.
where did I say we didn't recruit people with degrees?

The difference between the two being what exactly ?

"We rejected a lot of degree level people when recruiting"

Amusing that you say "we" as if you were part of it

The other answer being that the jobs on offer weren't of a high
enough standard to require someone with a degree

stop digging now, you'll never get out of the hole retard


You are still too thick to understand it then!

Explain it then, retard



--
geoff

harry wrote:
On 8 Aug, 12:59, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes





On 8 Aug, 12:03, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 20:13, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes
sealed, on a lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to
allow you take the power out. Wish I could give a reference
but remember it being announced two or three years back on a
reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes
it away, still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from
China. Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All
Glow With Happiness.
Owain
There is no such device. Nor will there be.
There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one
though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afraid not. The nuclear sub has the sea for cooling pirposes. Not
available to any "portable device".

Are you really as stupid as you seem, or its it just an act?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am a technocrat. Not a feeble minded old retard masquerading as an
oracle.

So, what do you actually do, what qualifications do you have ?

--
geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am now retired . The last job I had was energy efficiency engineer
in the NHS. Previously I was in charge of operations and maintenence
at various large hospitals. I had to deal with radiocactive materials
there. I have HNC in electrical machines, power and control sytems
also in applied heat and mechanic.
i came up from the tools.

Well done for doing so. An HNC was equivalent to an A Level to those that
came into education late in life.

I worked for government industries such as the CEGB and Water Authorities.
During the '80s, it was amazing to note the number of useless folk that
migrated from those before privatisation to the NHS. Part of the problem
that it still has.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Explain it then, retard

Impossible I can't explain to that low a level.
Find a primary school teacher to help you.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

Explain it then, retard

Impossible I can't explain to that low a level.
Find a primary school teacher to help you.

In other words, you can't - retard

once again youtalk ******** and won't admit it

maybe I should change it to spineless retard

Suits you, sir


--
geoff