In message , IMM
writes

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up. That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain from
them being in charge.

WTF are you ranting on about moron?

I was taking the **** out of NP for getting the IMM "can't spel, wont
spel" disease


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain from
them being in charge.

WTF are you ranting on about moron?

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain from
them being in charge.

WTF are you ranting on about moron?

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.


Absolutely not, the rot in the government goes far beyond the Hutton
report and that is much more important
--
geoff

IMM wrote:

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:59:42 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?


Very good..... I like it :-)




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain
from
them being in charge.

WTF are you ranting on about moron?

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.


Absolutely not, the rot in the government goes far beyond the Hutton
report and that is much more important

What rot Maxie? care to point some out, if you can. You are making things
up again.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
John Rumm wrote:

IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.
Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of
little value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting
to convince yourself.


Actually it was a Freudian slip.

The way I interpret his statement is that hes is the most naive and
trusting person in the world.

One for IMM he http://www.aitch.org.uk/misc/justification.jpg

LOL, Maxie. See you have an obessession about Hutton and WMD. So much so
you see them in black holes.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?

Great report. Hit the nail on the head.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:59:42 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?

Very good..... I like it :-)

Andy, how things in Little Middle England today?

IMM wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?


Great report. Hit the nail on the head.


fx: watches it fly straight over IMM's head \

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip/

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.

My concern is that Mr Blair is increasingly becoming a liability (sp)
to the *country*, in the sense that his mistakes over Iraq open up the
appalling possibility of a Conservative government with Michael Howard
at the helm.

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip/

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.

My concern is that Mr Blair is increasingly becoming a liability (sp)
to the *country*,

If this to do with Iraq, then the USA and the UK are in it together. You are
assuming that there was no basis for war. Thee was.

in the sense that his mistakes over
Iraq open up the appalling possibility
of a Conservative government with Michael Howard
at the helm.

The thought of that backwards party ever again in office is frightening.
Their chairman's name is Boris and Dracula leads it.

Blair is still on about constitutional change, which this country
desperately needs. Tony has to stay.

Julian Fowler wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip/

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.


My concern is that Mr Blair is increasingly becoming a liability (sp)
to the *country*, in the sense that his mistakes over Iraq open up the
appalling possibility of a Conservative government with Michael Howard
at the helm.


He has ALWAYS been a liability to the country.


What is increasing is teh public realization of that.


The 'demon eyes' poster is now looking almost precognitive in its
accuracy...

IMM wrote:

Absolutely not, the rot in the government goes far beyond the Hutton
report and that is much more important

Very true...

What rot Maxie? care to point some out, if you can. You are making things
up again.

LOL!

Allow me....

I think this is what they call a "target rich environment"

For starters try this:-

http://www.labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm

I think a bit of the intro sums it up quite well:-

"In the old days sleaze was about politicians succumbing to the material
temptations placed before them, such as expense accounts and foreign
travel, or it involved the personal sexual morality or marital fidelity
of politicians. There was little or no direct impact on the general
public, but the press and opposition politicians worked themselves into
a frenzy about it.

New Labour's New Sleaze works the other way round. It is all about the
perversion of democratic government; matters of great importance to the
public being cooked up behind closed doors, justified by massaged
figures, semi-leaked documents and news management."

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Absolutely not, the rot in the government goes far beyond the Hutton
report and that is much more important

Very true...

What rot Maxie? care to point some out, if you can. You are making
things
up again.

LOL!

Allow me....

snip tripe about sleaze, a inerrant Tory trait

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:28:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip/

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.


My concern is that Mr Blair is increasingly becoming a liability (sp)
to the *country*, in the sense that his mistakes over Iraq open up the
appalling possibility of a Conservative government with Michael Howard
at the helm.


He has ALWAYS been a liability to the country.

I'm certainly not going to indulge in IMM style Tony-is-always-right
dogma; however, when you look at the alternatives ... Major? Dull and
inept. Haig? Witty but indept. IDS? Just ... indept. Howard?
He'd probably have invaded Poland by now ...

Like him or or not, Blair is the most *successful* PM for generations.
There are many, many things that I dislike about the current
government ... but none of them would make me even consider for a
moment the possibility of having a different party in power.

What is increasing is teh public realization of that.

Do you really think that the public at large have the faintest
comprehension of the issues involved here? Even if they do, do you
think that they actually *care* about dossiers, Kelly, Hutton, WMDs,
etc.? The key to the success of any government is (in Bill Clinton's
words): "its the economy, stupid".

The 'demon eyes' poster is now looking almost precognitive in its
accuracy...

RAOTFL ....

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:28:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip/

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.


My concern is that Mr Blair is increasingly becoming a liability (sp)
to the *country*, in the sense that his mistakes over Iraq open up the
appalling possibility of a Conservative government with Michael Howard
at the helm.


He has ALWAYS been a liability to the country.

I'm certainly not going to indulge in IMM style Tony-is-always-right
dogma; however, when you look at the alternatives ... Major? Dull and
inept. Haig? Witty but indept. IDS? Just ... indept. Howard?
He'd probably have invaded Poland by now ...

Like him or or not, Blair is the most *successful* PM for generations.
There are many, many things that I dislike about the current
government ... but none of them would make me even consider for a
moment the possibility of having a different party in power.

What is increasing is teh public realization of that.

Do you really think that the public at large have the faintest
comprehension of the issues involved here? Even if they do, do you
think that they actually *care* about dossiers, Kelly, Hutton, WMDs,
etc.? The key to the success of any government is (in Bill Clinton's
words): "its the economy, stupid".

The 'demon eyes' poster is now looking almost precognitive in its
accuracy...

The one of Howard looking like Dracula is brilliant.

IMM wrote:

What rot Maxie? care to point some out, if you can. You are making

snip tripe about sleaze, a inerrant Tory trait

So why did you ask for it if you can't deal with the answer?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:39:21 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

Trouble is, the head you are talking about is your own, in other words, it
was the votes of 'Little Middle England' that put and kept Blair and his
'New Labour' in power.

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. I believe it may have been the
lack of votes which caused this lot to be in power.

An underlying reason for the above is that there was no credible
opposition party.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

John Rumm wrote in message ...
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

100/10 He is invaluable in heating and water systems and helped me
out no end. I saved a hell of lot of money, and space in the house, by
just taking his advice on this ng.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

What rot Maxie? care to point some out, if you can. You are making

snip tripe about sleaze, a inerrant Tory trait

So why did you ask for it if you can't deal with the answer?

You don't have answers, only prejudices based on Little England petty
snobbery.

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:39:21 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

Trouble is, the head you are talking about is your own, in other words,
it
was the votes of 'Little Middle England' that put and kept Blair and his
'New Labour' in power.

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. I believe it may have been the
lack of votes which caused this lot to be in power.

An underlying reason for the above is that there was no credible
opposition party.

Wrong. It was just that New labour are brilliant. two consecutive
landslides says it all.

IMM wrote:

Wrong. It was just that New labour are brilliant. two consecutive
landslides says it all.

This would be the landslide which saw less people voting for Blair than
voted for Kinnock the last time he sought election?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Wrong. It was just that New labour are brilliant. two consecutive
landslides says it all.

This would be the landslide which saw less people voting for Blair than
voted for Kinnock the last time he sought election?

Or the 1945 Labour landslide which they lost the next election despite
polling more votes.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Wrong. It was just that New labour are brilliant.

Can't be that brilliant, seeing that some unions are abandoning 'New
Labour', how did one RMT official describe Blair and his government today,
'worse than Thatcher' is how he put it IIRC....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Blair is still on about constitutional change, which this country
desperately needs. Tony has to stay.



Not in the slightest, Tony Blair is / not/ the Labour Party, just as
Thatcher was not the Tory party.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain from
them being in charge.


Well the evidence, as given by HMG etc. (and available on the web) says
differently, or having words changed / removed / added to a document doesn't
count as 'sexing up' ?

If someone alters a document to suit their own needs that in most peoples
eyes means it has, to use the phrase, been sexed up.

In article , IMM
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:52:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
In article , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of
every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the
whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that things
are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media is
full
of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.

They are not. Why don't you open your mind up for once.

Actually John I think you'll find that the rest of us do have open
minds, its you that does not, you just keep trundling out the same party
lines and uninformed opinion, its time you got away from sitting all day
and night at your computer and went outside to smell the coffee.

(snip usual garbage reply)
--
David

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?

Great report. Hit the nail on the head.



But one doesn't get very far, very fast, when you try hitting a nail into
something whilst using a rubber mallet....

IMM wrote in message ...
You don't have answers, only prejudices based on Little England petty
snobbery.

Snip drivel?

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...

You don't have answers, only prejudices based on Little England petty
snobbery.

Snip drivel?

I have snipped some drivel in my time.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain
from
them being in charge.


Well the evidence, as given by HMG etc. (and available on the web) says
differently, or having words changed / removed / added to a document
doesn't
count as 'sexing up' ?

If someone alters a document to suit their own needs that in most peoples
eyes means it has, to use the phrase, been sexed up.

Sorry sunshine, the judge said it was not sexed up. And that is final. You
are brainwashed.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain
from
them being in charge.


Well the evidence, as given by HMG etc. (and available on the web) says
differently, or having words changed / removed / added to a document
doesn't
count as 'sexing up' ?

If someone alters a document to suit their own needs that in most
peoples
eyes means it has, to use the phrase, been sexed up.

Sorry sunshine, the judge said it was not sexed up. And that is final.
You
are brainwashed.



No. you are, and BTW the 'case' judge does not have the final word in the
UK's legal system, there are appeal courts and ultimately the Law Lords [1].
Time will tell if Load Hutton does have the final word.

[1] not to mention the European appeal court.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything
up.
That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a
bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why
do
you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain
from
them being in charge.


Well the evidence, as given by HMG etc. (and available on the web)
says
differently, or having words changed / removed / added to a document
doesn't
count as 'sexing up' ?

If someone alters a document to suit their own needs that in most
peoples
eyes means it has, to use the phrase, been sexed up.

Sorry sunshine, the judge said it was not sexed up. And that is final.
You
are brainwashed.

snip the Hutton report was fair and final

In message , timegoesby
writes
John Rumm wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

100/10 He is invaluable in heating and water systems

I 'm sure that Fernox would work better

--
geoff

wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:52:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
In article , IMM

writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of
every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the
whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that
things
are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a
legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media
is
full
of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put
in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.

They are not. Why don't you open your mind up for once.

Actually John I think you'll find that the rest of us do have open
minds,

Bertie, you don't.

its you that does not, you just keep
trundling out the same party
lines and uninformed opinion,

The Hutton report is not my opinion. It is now fact and cast in concrete.

its time you got away from sitting all day
and night at your computer and went
outside to smell the coffee.

Bertie, is Starbuks setting up outside?

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Wrong. It was just that New labour are brilliant.

Can't be that brilliant, seeing that some unions are abandoning 'New
Labour', how did one RMT official describe Blair and his government today,
'worse than Thatcher' is how he put it IIRC....

Are you disappointed?

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Blair is still on about constitutional change, which this country
desperately needs. Tony has to stay.

Not in the slightest, Tony Blair is / not/ the Labour Party, just as
Thatcher was not the Tory party.

Wrong answer. I said "Blair is still on about constitutional change, which
this country desperately needs. Tony has to stay."

In message , Stuart Moore
writes
IMM wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Maxie, you are pre-occupied with Hutton.

Hutton dressed as scam?
Great report. Hit the nail on the head.


fx: watches it fly straight over IMM's head \

Again

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , timegoesby
writes
John Rumm wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

100/10 He is invaluable in heating and water systems

I 'm sure that Fernox would work better

Maxie, LOL, nice one.