John Rumm wrote:

On 30/10/2010 10:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Man at wrote:

Err, no. Replace "supernova explosions" with "supernovae" and
everything is fine.

Err yes, the OP obviously intended to convey a particular meaning which
your version does not. So you're wrong.

And how is the meaning altered by changing it to be grammatically correct?

You seem to have problems with English, I haven't said what you seem to
be alleging that I have said. And your "correction" was not
"gramatically correct". The English plural of supernova is not
"supernovae".

On 30/10/2010 23:51, Steve Firth wrote:

The English plural of supernova is not
"supernovae".

It is. The Concise Oxford (and other dictionaries) give both spellings.

On 29/10/2010 11:40, David Hansen wrote:

These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.




Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

In fact, I _know_ they aren't that good!

Open-cycle gas turbines are about the only old plant I'd want to see
used that way.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 29/10/2010 11:40, David Hansen wrote:

These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.




Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

In fact, I _know_ they aren't that good!

Open-cycle gas turbines are about the only old plant I'd want to see
used that way.

Yup. Actually nuclear reactors can be wound up faster than coal can in
terms of part load to full. They cant go lower than a significant
fraction of the total load though.
Places like Lithuania that burn coal or oil shale are in deep trouble if
they go with wind. Likely to see no benefit whatsoever unless they
replace those plants with CCGT, and in which case they get tied to
Russia, for gas. And in any case simply going gas CCGT is a huge drop in
carbon emissions - the windmills sim-ply add expense and complexity and
give no benefit.

The whole wind thing is complete lunacy. Hansen is the chief lunatic.





Andy

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:03:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect. However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:03:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect.

In peruods of intermedaite wind, you can actually see teh onlie records
of predicted windpower versus actual.

They are out by up to 50% of the windpower.

Even when they are not, the slew rate and the rapidity of going from a
pretty near gale to calm in 5-6 hours is notable.


However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.


But Not good enouhg to avoid having a lot of standby and some hot
standby and some spinning reserve always in play.

Dave, give up. Wind power doesn't work. It mneets none of its design
objectives

Its not green. Its a scam.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.

Weaseling away again.

In article , David Hansen
scribeth thus
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:03:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.

Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect. However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.



No wind to speak of here today in Cambridge .. and there wasn't any
yesterday, just a bit of light rain and no wind the day before so I
suppose we'd better warm the olde boiler up;!...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , David Hansen
scribeth thus
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:03:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Surely a lot of the end of life plants are coal (or old nuclear) which
take days to go from cold to generating? I don't think the wind
forecasts are that good.
Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect. However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.



No wind to speak of here today in Cambridge .. and there wasn't any
yesterday, just a bit of light rain and no wind the day before so I
suppose we'd better warm the olde boiler up;!...

There will be enough of it to destroy windfarms in 24 hours .. So hey
will probably feather and stop working as well.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:08:22 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

No wind to speak of here today in Cambridge .. and there wasn't any
yesterday,

Be careful about assuming that wind patterns in one location are
representative of those elsewhere. It isn't always the case.

However, wind output was low earlier today. That was forecast in
plenty of time to get some old plant going [1]. Also, as forecast,
wind output is rising rapidly and it would be possible to look at
whether such plant could be put to sleep again.

All as discussed. Nothing to get excited about, simply an example of
managing the electricity system.


[1] assuming that with a much larger amount of diverse wind the
pattern would have been repeated.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Oct 31, 8:21*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


The whole wind thing is complete lunacy. Hansen is the chief lunatic.

Some are starting to see sense
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ar-and-GM.html

MBQ

On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 06:52:58 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ar-and-GM.html

The article features three people, only one of whom is quoted as
making comments on nuclear, the other two just comment on GM.

The programme will have to be more convincing than the article if it
is to be respected.

One of them, speaking about GM, is quoted as saying,
"Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and
unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence."

If this comment was made about nuclear then it is easy to disprove.
I was in favour of nuclear power, until I actually listened to the
arguments of the opponents, set out to prove they were wrong and
found out that I couldn't.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 31/10/2010 22:52, David Hansen wrote:

Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect. However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.



The reason why I know the wind forecasts are not that good is that my
hobby is sailing.

They are frequently out by a factor of 2 on the next day forecast. And
available power is IIRC cube of windspeed.

BTW David is _not_ the chief lunatic. He undertakes rational argument,
and produces data supporting his claims. We don't happen to agree with
him, but that does not make him mad.

Andy

David Hansen wrote:

I was in favour of nuclear power, until I actually listened to the
arguments of the opponents, set out to prove they were wrong and
found out that I couldn't.

Right... and the fact that some numbnuts can't prove something is a
reason we should all retreat to the caves is it?

David Hansen wrote:

These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.

That's umm "cobblers" is I think the best description. It shows an
astonishing ignorance of engineering, of the operation and maintenance
of generating plant and of the economics of power generation. As a fail,
it's epic.

You mentioned two power station previously, one nuclear, one coal-fired.
If one wished to pick two examples of types of powerstation that should
only be used for base load generation you couldn't have done better. But
you propose to have them used as "reserve" power generation for which
neither type is suitable.

It's a good job that your previous pronouncements have left you without
credibility on energy matters, because you just blew whatever shred you
were clinging onto far out to sea.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 06:52:58 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ar-and-GM.html

The article features three people, only one of whom is quoted as
making comments on nuclear, the other two just comment on GM.

The programme will have to be more convincing than the article if it
is to be respected.

One of them, speaking about GM, is quoted as saying,
"Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and
unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence."

If this comment was made about nuclear then it is easy to disprove.
I was in favour of nuclear power, until I actually listened to the
arguments of the opponents, set out to prove they were wrong and
found out that I couldn't.



But that is only a symptom of your general inability to think, or do sums.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 31/10/2010 22:52, David Hansen wrote:

Wind forecasts one pays for are rather better than the general ones,
but still not perfect. However, they do identify possible low wind
conditions days ahead. The prolonged absence of suitable wind for
days is a myth hyped by the anti-wind lobby, but the shorter periods
of reduced output can be forecast days ahead with reasonable
accuracy.

Old coal plants can be used as part of an integrated system. They
could not be used were they the only plant, but that is not
something I suggested.



The reason why I know the wind forecasts are not that good is that my
hobby is sailing.

They are frequently out by a factor of 2 on the next day forecast. And
available power is IIRC cube of windspeed.

BTW David is _not_ the chief lunatic. He undertakes rational argument,
and produces data supporting his claims.

He always picks at data from the wind lobby. And it does NOT support his
claims. At a casual glance it *appears* to, but deeper inspection shows
it's talking about something else.

He has still never produced one shred of data showing that in the UK,
massive deployment of windfarms will reduce CO2 emissions, or our
dependency on imported fossil fuel.

Because there is none.

Lots of worthies CLAIM that it will, or assume that it must: But it's
never been investigated and the more evidence of real operational issues
that emerges, the more it seems its a very false assumption indeed.



We don't happen to agree with
him, but that does not make him mad.

He is not able to carry a rational argument or answer a direct question.
so we could say hes a marketing bull****ter or a politician. He sure
ain't an engineer.



Andy

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:27:57 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

The reason why I know the wind forecasts are not that good is that my
hobby is sailing.

Do you pay for wind forecasts?

BTW David is _not_ the chief lunatic. He undertakes rational argument,
and produces data supporting his claims. We don't happen to agree with
him, but that does not make him mad.

Thank you.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

In message , David Hansen
writes
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:27:57 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

The reason why I know the wind forecasts are not that good is that my
hobby is sailing.

Do you pay for wind forecasts?

BTW David is _not_ the chief lunatic. He undertakes rational argument,
and produces data supporting his claims. We don't happen to agree with
him, but that does not make him mad.

Thank you.

I don't know enough to have an opinion but I'll happily read stuff from
posters who avoid descending to abuse.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On 1 Nov, 20:55, (Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.

That's umm "cobblers" is I think the best description. It shows an
astonishing ignorance of engineering, of the operation and maintenance
of generating plant and of the economics of power generation. As a fail,
it's epic.

You mentioned two power station previously, one nuclear, one coal-fired.
If one wished to pick two examples of types of powerstation that should
only be used for base load generation you couldn't have done better. But
you propose to have them used as "reserve" power generation for which
neither type is suitable.

It's a good job that your previous pronouncements have left you without
credibility on energy matters, because you just blew whatever shred you
were clinging onto far out to sea.

WRT steam boilers. Either you use them or you don't. Mothballing is
possible (there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention. Using them at
reduced loads causes them to deteriorate at exactly the same speed as
heavy use and, apart from the fuel, the same cost.
Gas turbines don't like being shut down at all, they have to be kept
on idle at all times to get maximum life.

On 1 Nov, 12:53, David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:08:22 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

No wind to speak of here today in Cambridge .. and there wasn't any
yesterday,

Be careful about assuming that wind patterns in one location are
representative of those elsewhere. It isn't always the case.

However, wind output was low earlier today. That was forecast in
plenty of time to get some old plant going [1]. Also, as forecast,
wind output is rising rapidly and it would be possible to look at
whether such plant could be put to sleep again.

All as discussed. Nothing to get excited about, simply an example of
managing the electricity system.

[1] assuming that with a much larger amount of diverse wind the
pattern would have been repeated.

--
* David Hansen, Edinburgh
*I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

My hobby is gliding. The wind forecasts generally give out are for
ground level. A couple of hundred feet up they are quite different
both in force and direction. Ballooners use this to get from Ato B.
They are strongly effected by even quite minor hills again in force
and direction. Big windmills can take advantage of this.
At greater altitudes I have often experienced winds of seventy or
eighty knots when on the ground it has been only ten knots.
Occasionally I have seen over a hundred knots.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:27:57 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

The reason why I know the wind forecasts are not that good is that my
hobby is sailing.

Do you pay for wind forecasts?

When you fly a light aircraft you need good forecasts and the wind ones are
much more unreliable than the cloud base and rain forecasts, free or not.
You don't rely on a forecast made the day before as it is more likely to be
wrong than right.
That is the state of wind forecasting ATM, about a day if you are (un)lucky.

On Oct 30, 9:53*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Err, no. Replace "supernova explosions" with "supernovae" and
everything is fine.

Err yes, the OP obviously intended to convey a particular meaning which
your version does not. So you're wrong.

I know from past experience that you're among the most arrogant of the
arrogant ****s posting here,

You have the experience to make a fine judge of that particular
character trait.

MBQ

harry wrote:
On 1 Nov, 20:55, (Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.
That's umm "cobblers" is I think the best description. It shows an
astonishing ignorance of engineering, of the operation and maintenance
of generating plant and of the economics of power generation. As a fail,
it's epic.

You mentioned two power station previously, one nuclear, one coal-fired.
If one wished to pick two examples of types of powerstation that should
only be used for base load generation you couldn't have done better. But
you propose to have them used as "reserve" power generation for which
neither type is suitable.

It's a good job that your previous pronouncements have left you without
credibility on energy matters, because you just blew whatever shred you
were clinging onto far out to sea.

WRT steam boilers. Either you use them or you don't. Mothballing is
possible (there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention. Using them at
reduced loads causes them to deteriorate at exactly the same speed as
heavy use and, apart from the fuel, the same cost.
Gas turbines don't like being shut down at all, they have to be kept
on idle at all times to get maximum life.

No, that's not quite true. Each stop start cycle imposes extra stress
and wear, but of they are off for long periods, that can balance out.

Of course windmills suffer far more than any thing else from constant
power modulation. They are breaking and wearing out far sooner an expected.

The response to a drop in grid supply is first of all to push the
spinning reserve up, then to fire up straight diesel plant, followed by
OCGT or CCGT in open mode, then to stop supplying those customers who
are flagged as 'not time critical' and then to start dumping parts of te
grid.

If you know well in advance of course that e.g. a nuclear plant is being
shut down for maintenance and refuelling, then you can de mothball old
coal plant and the like and get it working.

You can't do that if the wind suddenly drops.

The best (sic) backup for wind if hydro is not available, is CCGT plant
designed to do this. However as I keep saying no one knows if the actual
fuel efficiency under his sort of regime is so poor as to negate all the
advantages of the wind its backing up.

The fact that despite massive wind deployment, Denmark's overall CO2
emissions have barely changed, tends to suggest that it is.

Better CO2 figures would have been obtained had Denmark simply replaced
its older generation capacity with CCGT alone.

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

WRT steam boilers. Either you use them or you don't. Mothballing is
possible (there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention.

A number of old coal plants are used for a low number of hours
without rotting away or requiring a lot of attention.

Near here Cockenzie is an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockenzie_power_station
The fact that Scottish Power intend to replace it with gas turbines
tells us about the market, rather than the engineering.






--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

My hobby is gliding. The wind forecasts generally give out are for
ground level. A couple of hundred feet up they are quite different
both in force and direction.

The wind forecasts given out in the mass media are for ground level.
As you say the wind is different higher up, which is one of the
reasons why larger wind turbines are being built. Like other
utilities wind operators pay for more detailed and more specific
forecasts, which relate to their work.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

My hobby is gliding. The wind forecasts generally give out are for
ground level. A couple of hundred feet up they are quite different
both in force and direction.

The wind forecasts given out in the mass media are for ground level.
As you say the wind is different higher up, which is one of the
reasons why larger wind turbines are being built. Like other
utilities wind operators pay for more detailed and more specific
forecasts, which relate to their work.


But are historically, no more then rough guides.

Generally out by 50% most of the time, in terms of MW generated versus
expectations, 24 hours ahead.

The data is online. See for yourself.

On Nov 2, 12:09*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

WRT steam boilers. *Either you use them or you don't. *Mothballing is
possible *(there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention.

A number of old coal plants are used for a low number of hours
without rotting away or requiring a lot of attention.

Near here Cockenzie is an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockenzie_power_station
The fact that Scottish Power intend to replace it with gas turbines
tells us about the market, rather than the engineering.

It could just as easily tell us they need gas turbine to cope with the
fickle wind power that is being installed.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:09 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

WRT steam boilers. Either you use them or you don't. Mothballing is
possible (there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention.
A number of old coal plants are used for a low number of hours
without rotting away or requiring a lot of attention.

Near here Cockenzie is an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockenzie_power_station
The fact that Scottish Power intend to replace it with gas turbines
tells us about the market, rather than the engineering.

It could just as easily tell us they need gas turbine to cope with the
fickle wind power that is being installed.

Not to dynamo dave it couldn't.

To him, windpower is The Righteous Thimg, and like any dogma, anything
that has to happen to make it appear to do something useful is always
not down to the intrinsic properties of windpower. It has to be
something else. In this case 'the market' about which he seems to
understand even less, than about windpower.

Drivel and combis.
Hansen and windpower.

MBQ

David Hansen wrote:

The fact that Scottish Power intend to replace it with gas turbines
tells us about the market, rather than the engineering.

The fact you think that tells us that you're an obsessive nut with a
weak grasp of engineering.

Care to quote the CO2 saving made by Germany in the dash for renewables?
Even better, care to contrast that with the CO2 savings made by France
in the dash for nuclear?

No, I didn't think you would.

Man at B&Q wrote:

You have the experience to make a fine judge of that particular
character trait.

Three days and that's the best you could come up with? Take your brain
back and tell the shop it's broken.

On Nov 3, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

You have the experience to make a fine judge of that particular
character trait.

Three days and that's the best you could come up with?

Don't kid yourself. I have better things to do with my time. You get
about 3 nanoseconds of it.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:58 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

You have the experience to make a fine judge of that particular
character trait.

Three days and that's the best you could come up with?

Don't kid yourself. I have better things to do with my time. You get
about 3 nanoseconds of it.

As lame face saving goes, that's as lame as the rest of the tripe you
write, numbnuts.

On Nov 3, 4:20*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:58 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

You have the experience to make a fine judge of that particular
character trait.

Three days and that's the best you could come up with?

Don't kid yourself. I have better things to do with my time. You get
about 3 nanoseconds of it.

As lame face saving goes, that's as lame as the rest of the tripe you
write,

At least I have a face worth saving

numbnuts.

I'd get those seen to. Might improve your face too.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:


At least I have a face worth saving

Once one has started on the route of self-deceit I suppose there's no
turning back.