On 21/06/15 11:39, John Chance wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 10:46, John Chance wrote:

By getting to wear the fact that there aren't
enough like you to pay the cost of staying open.

There are villages around here that can sustain 3 proper pubs.

But that place clearly can't sustain even one.

It's a bloody great big town - I don't believe that for a second.

On 21/06/2015 11:20, Tim Watts wrote:
On 21/06/15 10:46, John Chance wrote:

By getting to wear the fact that there aren't
enough like you to pay the cost of staying open.

There are villages around here that can sustain 3 proper pubs.

I always thought Tonbridge was messed up but now I know it...


There is also the problem that pubs owned by the same brewery/chain tend
to be one style fits all and in some cases what works for an London
tourist pub is rolled out to the rest of the estate.

Or alternatively they get some trendy designer type to redesign the pub
without considering the local trade. An example around my way was a pub
in predominantly bet-sit land where and for 30+ years the exterior was
fake Elizabethan (white with black beams). They re-branded the pub as a
Wine Warehouse and Restaurant while camouflaging the whole property
(including chimney stacks) in army surplus Kharki paint. The results,
no custom in the restaurant, few wine sales, beer range reduced, live
music (in adjoining building) stopped, management and staff who didn't
want to serve anyone. There was an attempt to save the situation by
removing all the wine racks and the partition separating the restaurant
from the pub. Unfortunately it didn't help as they kept the poor
management. It's now under new management who will have an uphill
struggle regaining custom that has been driven away.

You can usually tell the state of a pub by the sate of the toilets. If
the toilets are in a bad way the same will be true of the kitchens and
cellar.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think the closedown of pubs began before the smoking ban, the ban
just seemed to add to it. In part it was brewaries wanting too big a
profit from their pubs.

Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns. And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Charles Hope" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Even gin doesn't have much more added.

both of which are generally undrinkable without the "mixer"

Bull****. Pink gin has no mixer.

so, do you not "mix" the angostura with the gin?

That isn't what the word mixer means in that context.

which is why I put it in quotes

I wasn't using it that way

tim

On 21/06/2015 10:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
There is seldom enough diesel fumes around to actually irritate my
throat but there is enough fag smoke from one smoker.

Diesel engine fumes these days are odourless, insidious and deadly (long
and short term.)

You've been believing makers claims again. Anyone who lives in a town will
know diesel fumes certainly ain't odourless in practice.


You can certainly tell the ones running on paraffin, the perfume
survives passing through the engine and you can smell them for ages
after they pass.

On 21/06/2015 12:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/15 12:04, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) pretended :
More likely those who attempted to do so closed down. Most who liked
pubs
and the culture don't want screaming kids around.

I've never been a serious drinker, but I've always enjoyed a pint or
two. I never drink at home, I would never dream of buying a few tins or
bottles in, its just not the same - not the same drink, not the same
atmosphere.

I think the closedown of pubs began before the smoking ban, the ban just
seemed to add to it. In part it was brewaries wanting too big a profit
from their pubs.

Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Rubbish, the smoking ban came too late to save pubs..
most family people stopped going to pubs because of the smoking and once
that happened it was too late to get them back.

If the pubs had taken note of the change they would have had no smoking
areas and survived.

It all started at least 30 years ago. Lots of people went out seeking
smoke free pubs and restaurants, the restaurants responded the pubs said
stuff you we serve our regulars. The rest is history.

On 21/06/2015 14:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think the closedown of pubs began before the smoking ban, the ban
just seemed to add to it. In part it was brewaries wanting too big a
profit from their pubs.

Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns. And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.


Smokers have to blame something.
The fact is less people smoke and less were prepared to go in a pub and
suffer.
They went elsewhere, the pubs closed.

So smokers are responsible for the closure of many pubs, they didn't
spend enough and non smokers didn't want to share the pollution.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Rubbish, the smoking ban came too late to save pubs..
most family people stopped going to pubs because of the smoking and once
that happened it was too late to get them back.

You make it sound that smoking was something new. A far larger percentage
of people smoked within living memory than now. Oh - and smoked in the
same room or whatever as their kids.

If the pubs had taken note of the change they would have had no smoking
areas and survived.

A lot more to it than that. Smokers had stopped going to their local too.

It all started at least 30 years ago. Lots of people went out seeking
smoke free pubs and restaurants, the restaurants responded the pubs said
stuff you we serve our regulars. The rest is history.

I'd say there's a big difference between a traditional pub and a
restaurant. Not everyone wants to eat and drink at the same time. Or wants
to pay the considerable extra to eat out.

--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Smokers have to blame something.
The fact is less people smoke and less were prepared to go in a pub and
suffer.
They went elsewhere, the pubs closed.

No. The non smoking mafia have at least as much responsibility. Saying the
reason they didn't use a local was because of the smoke. But when it was
banned, still didn't use it.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/06/2015 15:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Smokers have to blame something.
The fact is less people smoke and less were prepared to go in a pub and
suffer.
They went elsewhere, the pubs closed.

No. The non smoking mafia have at least as much responsibility. Saying the
reason they didn't use a local was because of the smoke. But when it was
banned, still didn't use it.


That's the pubs fault, when we had to go elsewhere we found it was
better than going to the pub, there was no reason to go back.

The smoking ban was a health and safety at work problem, they have to
protect the staff whether the staff want to be protected or not.
If they had done it earlier then people like me would still have gone to
pubs but I sure as hell aren't going to now and neither are my kids
likely to do so. The majority of pubs will close and its not the smoking
ban to blame, its the smokers and the short sighted pub managers.

You get exactly the same effect when they decide to extend a busy pub,
people go elsewhere while the work is going on and frequently don't
return leaving a large pub with more overheads and less customers.

On 21/06/2015 15:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Rubbish, the smoking ban came too late to save pubs..
most family people stopped going to pubs because of the smoking and once
that happened it was too late to get them back.

You make it sound that smoking was something new. A far larger percentage
of people smoked within living memory than now. Oh - and smoked in the
same room or whatever as their kids.

So what if they used to, the fact is less do now and it started when you
couldn't go into a pub without some selfish smoker polluting the air,
even in none smoking areas.



If the pubs had taken note of the change they would have had no smoking
areas and survived.

A lot more to it than that. Smokers had stopped going to their local too.

That I wouldn't know about, I stopped going well before the smoking ban
as did a large number of people I know.


It all started at least 30 years ago. Lots of people went out seeking
smoke free pubs and restaurants, the restaurants responded the pubs said
stuff you we serve our regulars. The rest is history.

I'd say there's a big difference between a traditional pub and a
restaurant. Not everyone wants to eat and drink at the same time. Or wants
to pay the considerable extra to eat out.


There wasn't much alternative unless you sat outside the pub and even
then some filthy smoker would come and light up next to you.
If you wanted to avoid smoke you didn't go to a pub so they got less
customers and they aren't going to go back to a pub now.

On 21/06/2015 15:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


No. The non smoking mafia have at least as much responsibility. Saying the
reason they didn't use a local was because of the smoke. But when it was
banned, still didn't use it.


But there are many pubs still packed out and we have the smoking ban.
And, many of these pubs do not have the smokers acting as unofficial
doormen putting off potential customers from entering the premises.

People are not going to start using a grotty pubs just because there is
no longer smoking. The demise of a failing pubs was probably quickened
by the smoking ban but the ban itself was not the sole reason for the
closure of a single pub.

Before the ban friends and I once did a tour of all the pubs owned by
one (small) brewery and found that around 25% only had a handful of
customers, even on a Saturday evening, and were serving beer well past
its best. While some of these pubs were in rural locations many were on
the outskirts of large towns. We commented at the time that many of
these pubs would be closing soon and it wouldn't be great loss for the
drinking public.






-- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 21/06/2015 15:53, dennis@home wrote:

You get exactly the same effect when they decide to extend a busy pub,
people go elsewhere while the work is going on and frequently don't
return leaving a large pub with more overheads and less customers.

+1
Close a pub for two to four weeks for the refurbishment and you break
people's habits and/or they then find something better them better.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 21/06/2015 15:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Smokers have to blame something.
The fact is less people smoke and less were prepared to go in a pub and
suffer.
They went elsewhere, the pubs closed.

No. The non smoking mafia have at least as much responsibility. Saying
the
reason they didn't use a local was because of the smoke. But when it was
banned, still didn't use it.


That's the pubs fault, when we had to go elsewhere we found it was better
than going to the pub, there was no reason to go back.

The smoking ban was a health and safety at work problem, they have to
protect the staff whether the staff want to be protected or not.
If they had done it earlier then people like me would still have gone to
pubs but I sure as hell aren't going to now and neither are my kids likely
to do so. The majority of pubs will close and its not the smoking ban to
blame, its the smokers and the short sighted pub managers.

You get exactly the same effect when they decide to extend a busy pub,
people go elsewhere while the work is going on and frequently don't return
leaving a large pub with more overheads and less customers.

Not in my experience they don't.
People go back to see what's happened and usually they like the
improvements/changes.
This is why breweries invest in modernisation, they happen to know what they
are doing ----------- mostly.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 11:39, John Chance wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 10:46, John Chance wrote:

By getting to wear the fact that there aren't
enough like you to pay the cost of staying open.

There are villages around here that can sustain 3 proper pubs.

But that place clearly can't sustain even one.

It's a bloody great big town - I don't believe that for a second.

That may well be the main problem, its too big to be
viable to walk to the one or two viable pubs so you
don't get shafted for driving back over the limit so
people prefer to pay much less for what they drink and
don't have the problem of driving when over the limit.

Or the one currently covered in scaffolding will be
viable if they do it right when the work is completed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think the closedown of pubs began before the smoking ban, the ban
just seemed to add to it. In part it was brewaries wanting too big a
profit from their pubs.

Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns.

It does actually. There just aren't enough people who still
want to drink in pubs within walking distance of most pubs.

And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.

Yes, because of the crackdown on drink driving.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Charles Hope" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Even gin doesn't have much more added.

both of which are generally undrinkable without the "mixer"

Bull****. Pink gin has no mixer.

so, do you not "mix" the angostura with the gin?

That isn't what the word mixer means in that context.

which is why I put it in quotes

I wasn't using it that way

But everyone else does so your comment is
completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Even gin doesn’t have much more added.

both of which are generally undrinkable without the "mixer"

Bull****. Pink gin has no mixer.

what do you think the "pink" is?

Its not a mixer, its bitters and when its 'out', all that is done
with it is swirled around the glass and chucked away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Gin

But According to your own link, the object of the exercise
was to make the consumption of the Angustura bitters more
enjoyable

Sure, but then the world moved on and that
isn't the reason most who drink it drink it now.

Same with beer in the sense that it was a lot safer to
drink that just water at one time but it isn't the reason
that most drink it now.

quote

Plymouth gin is a 'sweet' gin, as opposed to London gin which
is 'dry', and was added to Angostura bitters to make the
consumption of Angostura bitters more enjoyable.[2]

quote

Now whether that's a load of old ******** or not I really
don't know.

No, its accurate. We saw a similar thing with gin and tonic,
a more pleasant way to get what quinine was useful to take.

But according to your very own link - rather than pink gin
being gin with an angostura bitters mixer, it is in fact
angustora bitters with a gin mixer.

quote

ngostura bitters were used as a treatment for sea sickness in 1824
by Dr. Johann Gottlieb Benjamin Siegert (though they were used for
other medicinal purposes long before this),[3] who subsequently
formed the House of Angostura, a company selling the bitters
to sailors.

quote

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 11:40, Rod Speed wrote:

"soup" wrote
IMHO Gin is undrinkable with or without a mixer

Clearly plenty disagree with you on that.

Bet you they drink Earl Grey too. ;O)

Nar, Lapsang Souchong, silly.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?

I've never given a flying red **** what anything is supposed to be.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Two things trashed pubs in the country - clamping down on drink driving
and the smoking ban.

Rubbish, the smoking ban came too late to save pubs..
most family people stopped going to pubs because of the smoking and once
that happened it was too late to get them back.

You make it sound that smoking was something new. A far larger percentage
of people smoked within living memory than now. Oh - and smoked in the
same room or whatever as their kids.

If the pubs had taken note of the change they would have had no smoking
areas and survived.

A lot more to it than that. Smokers had stopped going to their local too.

It all started at least 30 years ago. Lots of people went out seeking
smoke free pubs and restaurants, the restaurants responded the pubs said
stuff you we serve our regulars. The rest is history.

I'd say there's a big difference between a traditional pub and a
restaurant. Not everyone wants to eat and drink at the same time.

Yes.

Or wants to pay the considerable extra to eat out.

Doesn’t explain why a lot more eat out now than
used to in the past. They just don’t do it in pubs
much anymore except for a few dinosaurs like Harry.

The reality for pubs is that a great raft of changes
in how we do things, everything from cracking
down on drink driving, to much cheaper grog
from supermarkets to much better food available
than in pubs to the ban on smoking and big
changes in how people get ****ed way from
home have ALL produced the demise of most pubs.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?

I've never given a flying red **** what anything is supposed to be.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/arbvFRAzMq0J

On 18/06/2015 20:14, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...
Mrs Pounder Esquire has been smoking snouts for 53 years.
Three months ago she got one of those e-fag things. After two weeks she
stopped smoking it, she no longer needs a snout and would not bull**** me.
She gave the e-fag to me.
I have been a very heavy smoker for 45 years, and I LIKED it.
I've not had a snout for six weeks and do not want one. There is a pack of
unopened snouts in the house.
Shirley this must be worth a try?




much much too late for both of you ...

Rubbish. The risk of lung cancer will never be reduced to that of a
non-smoker, but the risk of stroke will within 2-5 years, as will,
eventually, the risk of coronary heart disease.


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/06/2015 09:21, RJH wrote:
On 18/06/2015 21:46, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/06/15 20:12, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 18/06/2015 20:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Mrs Pounder Esquire has been smoking snouts for 53 years.
Three months ago she got one of those e-fag things. After two weeks she
stopped smoking it, she no longer needs a snout and would not bull****
me.
She gave the e-fag to me.
I have been a very heavy smoker for 45 years, and I LIKED it.
I've not had a snout for six weeks and do not want one. There is a
pack of
unopened snouts in the house.
Shirley this must be worth a try?

Did the e-fag just make you realise how pointless it all was?

My Mum smoked 20-40 a day from the age of 14 till she was 60, when she
simply said that she couldn't afford it now she'd retired. No
recidivism, no apparent craving. Maybe like her, you were never really
addicted, it was just habit and perhaps a little belligerence.

Mind you, she still died of lung cancer, which was very nasty.

Cheers

Don't under estimate the chemical addictiveness of nicotine.


Indeed. I gave up the cigs (roll ups) in 2008 and I'm still on lozenges.
Not many - I get through a couple of 2mg a day, broken into 4. So
probably not that high a dose, and the stuff the nicotine is suspended
in is probably more harmful ;-)


My father used to smoke 60 a day before deciding he could do better
things with the money. He used Nicobrevin, since withdrawn as
ineffective except for having a placebo effect, for a month and gave up
entirely.

--
Colin Bignell

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
You make it sound that smoking was something new. A far larger
percentage of people smoked within living memory than now. Oh - and
smoked in the same room or whatever as their kids.

So what if they used to, the fact is less do now and it started when you
couldn't go into a pub without some selfish smoker polluting the air,
even in none smoking areas.

It didn't start then Dennis. It *existed* then. All the nonsense about
smoking being any reason at all for the decline in the traditional pub is
just in your mind.

The decline started long before the smoking ban, continued when there were
no smoking areas, and onwards when it was banned completely.

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
No. The non smoking mafia have at least as much responsibility. Saying
the reason they didn't use a local was because of the smoke. But when
it was banned, still didn't use it.


But there are many pubs still packed out

Given there are fewer, it's hardly surprising remaining ones are doing
reasonably well. Otherwise they'd have closed too...

and we have the smoking ban.

And, many of these pubs do not have the smokers acting as unofficial
doormen putting off potential customers from entering the premises.

You're not really a pub person, are you?

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns.

It does actually. There just aren't enough people who still
want to drink in pubs within walking distance of most pubs.

And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.

Yes, because of the crackdown on drink driving.

You've now got round to disagreeing with yourself in the same post.
Congratulations.

Perhaps we could have an entire thread where you 'debate' a topic solely
with your sock puppets?

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.

But, dear Wodney, there is, according to you. Is your brain so addled with
your various aliases you can't even remember what you said?

Hint. It's quoted in this post...

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?

I've never given a flying red **** what anything is supposed to be.

And you've never been particularly noted for your sense of
humour either, by the looks of things.

I'd probably be better of talking to a petrol pump.


michael adams

....

"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?

I've never given a flying red **** what anything is supposed to be.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/arbvFRAzMq0J








Pathetic

Posting FAQ's about trolls is about the surest sign of being
thick-as-**** trollbait, as can be imagined.

hint: trolls crave attention: so lets give then their own FAQ
boasting about how clever we are in having worked that they're
trolls, and then tell people to just ignore them.

A poster called Rod Speed was advising people to re-format
their HD's as a solution to just about every problem
long before that was even written.

HTH


michael adams

....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns.

It does actually. There just aren't enough people who still
want to drink in pubs within walking distance of most pubs.

And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.

Yes, because of the crackdown on drink driving.

You've now got round to disagreeing with yourself in the same post.

Like hell I did. Those two comments are saying exactly the same thing.

The reason the pubs need to be within walking distance IS
BECAUSE OF THE CRACKDOWN ON DRINK DRIVING, ****wit.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.

But, dear Wodney, there is, according to you.

Wrong, as always. I assumed even a terminal ****wit
such as yourself would actually understand that the purest
alcohol you can get contains quite a bit of water, ****wit.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.


Isn't it supposed to be all one word, "nitpicking",
(English), or "nit-picking" with a hyphen (US) ?

I've never given a flying red **** what anything is supposed to be.

And you've never been particularly noted for your sense of humour either,
by the looks of things.

You wouldn’t know what sense of humour was
if one bit you on your lard arse, ****wit child.

michael adams wrote

A poster called Rod Speed was advising people
to re-format their HD's as a solution to just about
every problem long before that was even written.

You're lying thru your teeth, ****wit child.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Maybe. But doesn't explain it in towns.

It does actually. There just aren't enough people who still
want to drink in pubs within walking distance of most pubs.

And the rot had set in before the
smoking ban round here.

Yes, because of the crackdown on drink driving.

You've now got round to disagreeing with yourself in the same post.

Like hell I did. Those two comments are saying exactly the same thing.

The reason the pubs need to be within walking distance IS
BECAUSE OF THE CRACKDOWN ON DRINK DRIVING, ****wit.

I do realise being a colonial you will not have any idea what history is,
but round here all the pubs and most of the houses were built long before
driving everywhere became the norm - and indeed before the motor car was
invented...


--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

There is nothing undrinkable about pure ethanol.

Only a desperate alcoholic would drink pure ethanol.

Bull****. That is all vodka is with water added.

Then it's not pure ethanol, you wally.

There is no such thing as drinkable pure
ethanol, you mindlessly nit picking ****wit.

But, dear Wodney, there is, according to you.

Wrong, as always. I assumed even a terminal ****wit
such as yourself would actually understand that the purest
alcohol you can get contains quite a bit of water, ****wit.

Only a total fool like you would use pure without knowing what it means.

Being a pure ******.


--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
A poster called Rod Speed was advising people to re-format their HD's as a solution to
just about every problem long before that was even written.

You're lying thru your teeth, ****wit child.

That's interesting. So you've actually checked through the
archives to be certain that nobody called "Rod Speed"
ever posted such advice ?

And why are you swearing so much, all of a sudden ?

Is it past your bedtime or something ?


michael adams

....

On 22/06/2015 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
You make it sound that smoking was something new. A far larger
percentage of people smoked within living memory than now. Oh - and
smoked in the same room or whatever as their kids.

So what if they used to, the fact is less do now and it started when you
couldn't go into a pub without some selfish smoker polluting the air,
even in none smoking areas.

It didn't start then Dennis. It *existed* then. All the nonsense about
smoking being any reason at all for the decline in the traditional pub is
just in your mind.

The decline started long before the smoking ban, continued when there were
no smoking areas, and onwards when it was banned completely.


The decline accelerated because people didn't want the smoke when they
started to wake up to how stupid it is to smoke.

The pubs didn't adapt, they went bust quicker.

By the time the ban came in there was a higher percentage of smokers
than before us none smokers left to go elsewhere so the ban may have had
more effect but there isn't much evidence as the pubs were closing anyway.