"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Stephen Cole wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.


Interesting choice of words.

Where does that leave those who aren't married?

where you leave people who aren't married or have sprogs....nowhere in your
often stated opinion

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats dont
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Stephen Cole wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.


Interesting choice of words.

Where does that leave those who arent married?

What matters isnt married but producing brats.

BTW, nature makes a nonsense of your claim. The natural
world is peppered with examples of the female being the
protector or the offspring being simply left to get of with it.

The latter only with species that produce vast numbers of brats.

In other words, biology has nothing to do with it. The women and children
first concept comes from the kind of values you spend your time
rubbishing.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.
but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?

Is it really necessary to ask such a question ?

Children with cancer or any other serious illness always
attract the greatest sympathy as they stand to lose far
more years of life than do adults. They never get the chance
to fulfil their potential or conversley to chance to
show that they never really had any to start with.

If Corbyn wasn't completely gormless he would right now be
asking for categorical guarentees from both Johnson and Gove
that no child with cancer will die as a result of a
shortage of medication following a No Deal Brexit.

No if or buts but a straightforward guarentee.

Completely silly. No one can every guarantee
that no child with cancer will never die and
when one does, its never going to be possible
to know what killed them.

And do you honestly think such niceties and fine distinctions
i.e "the truth" will be the main concern of "Sun", "Star",
"Express" or "Daily Mail" readers when Corbyn's question and
the politicians "obvious" evasions of the question make
front page news ?

Kiddies, cancer, cover-ups, if you're a journalist or the Leader
of Her Majesties Opposition, what's not to like ?

You really are quite gormless. But in responding to your posts
occasionally I see myself as explaining things to the sort of
gormless person you seem to represent. And who might otherwise
be still in the dark.

You're not a distant relative of Jeremy Corbyn by any chance
are you ?


michael adams

....

On 20/08/2019 11:49, Brian Reay wrote:
On 20/08/2019 09:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

Im just very concerned about children with cancer running out of medicine,
Brian. I would expect most decent people to be so, tbh. Its €œinteresting€�
that you dont seem to care one way or the other. HTH, OM.

No, you are worried about KFC and advising people to arm themselves.

Its €œinteresting€� to note that a few days ago Stephen Thomas Cole
CB/M0TEY made very light of the deaths of children in the bombing of
WWII - I take we are now seeing one of his other faces, which appears to
be using childhood cancer to score a political point.

--
Spike

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

Not really.

Codes of chivalry originated as codes of conduct for knights from the
12 century onwards. And only ever applied to knights and nobles.
At that time most well born female offspring were married off
at the age of 12 or 13. These were all financial arrangements
so as to keep family lines going. Sometimes the groom and bride
first met at the alter. *Such marriages might not be consummated for
years (which has been the source of some confusion later on re
ages of consent etc).

So not too dissimilar to the arranged marriages still common
in some cultures.

A big component in chivalry was the idea of "Courtly Love" - knights
composing romantic songs and poems to beautiful maidens. The
only problem with this was that the beautiful maidens to whom
such songs were addressed were often of necessity already
the wives of other knights

Another component of chivalry was the conduct of knights on the
battlefield. This was a set of rules that when fighting other knights on
the battlefield all fights were conducted with honour with no cheating
and knights didn't kill each other needlessly but took each other
prisoner and held each other to ransom or for subsequent exchange.
It also meant that knights thus taken prisoner didn't try and escape
on their honour (unlike modern POW's) and so often lived in the
relative luxury to which they were accustomed until their rellies
picked up the tab.

Chivalry only ever applied to knights.It certainly didn't apply to
the peasantry who were simply sword fodder on the battlefield and a
source of rent at home. So that when capturing besieged towns which
had refused to surrender it was not unknown for all the inhabitants,
men women, children and the infirm to be put to the sword or at least
to the club. While all the knights stayed in their tents outside
toasting one another or writing love poems to each others wives.

And similar considerations obviously applied to heathens with no
conception of Christianity let alone chivalry.

Quite how this evolved to the modern conception of chivalry is
another matter.


michael adams

....

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:48:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Where does that leave those who aren¢t married?

What matters isnt married but producing brats.

What matters is that you realize that NOBODY talked to you, trolling senile
asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:43:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don¢t
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

You are that sociopathic to believe that, eh, senile sociopath? BG

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

Rod Speed wrote:


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats dont
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.


But the logic is that to sire a new line with a replacement woman requires
a huge investment of energy and resources, not to mention time, whereas
doing what you can to ensure the survival of the existing wife and child
both saves that and also protects the energy and resources already invested
into them, if you see what I mean.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Spike wrote:
On 20/08/2019 11:49, Brian Reay wrote:
On 20/08/2019 09:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

Im just very concerned about children with cancer running out of medicine,
Brian. I would expect most decent people to be so, tbh. Its €œinteresting€�
that you dont seem to care one way or the other. HTH, OM.

No, you are worried about KFC and advising people to arm themselves.

Its €œinteresting€� to note that a few days ago Stephen Thomas Cole
CB/M0TEY made very light of the deaths of children in the bombing of
WWII

Are you now saying, Burt, that part of your contribution to the war effort
as a ****ty-nappied babe-in-arms was to die in a bombing? Because thats
quite the tall story, even by your standards!

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?

Is it really necessary to ask such a question ?

Children with cancer or any other serious illness always
attract the greatest sympathy as they stand to lose far
more years of life than do adults. They never get the chance
to fulfil their potential or conversley to chance to
show that they never really had any to start with.

If Corbyn wasn't completely gormless he would right now be
asking for categorical guarentees from both Johnson and Gove
that no child with cancer will die as a result of a
shortage of medication following a No Deal Brexit.

No if or buts but a straightforward guarentee.

Completely silly. No one can every guarantee
that no child with cancer will never die and
when one does, its never going to be possible
to know what killed them.

And do you honestly think such niceties and fine distinctions i.e "the
truth" will be the main concern of "Sun", "Star", "Express" or "Daily
Mail" readers when Corbyn's question and the politicians "obvious"
evasions of the question make front page news ?

Those **** rags are completely irrelevant to who gets to be the govt.

Kiddies, cancer, cover-ups, if you're a journalist or the Leader of Her
Majesties Opposition, what's not to like ?

What matters is who gets to be the govt.

None of those **** rags had any relevance to Boris
getting to drive the bus currently, or whether that
fool Corbyn has any chance of replacing him.

reams of your **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:26:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That¢s very arguable.

What is NOT "arguable" for you, you clinically insane "argumentative
asshole"!

It¢s the head cases that change the world.

You WISH, you impotent 85-year-old trolling senile nutter!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:36:57 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


And do you honestly think such niceties and fine distinctions i.e "the
truth" will be the main concern of "Sun", "Star", "Express" or "Daily
Mail" readers when Corbyn's question and the politicians "obvious"
evasions of the question make front page news ?

Those **** rags are completely irrelevant to who gets to be the govt.

Darn, this is your lucky day, senile Rodent: someone took your bait, you
85-year-old trolling senile asshole!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?

Is it really necessary to ask such a question ?

It shouldn't be.

Children with cancer or any other serious illness always
attract the greatest sympathy as they stand to lose far
more years of life than do adults. They never get the chance
to fulfil their potential or conversley to chance to
show that they never really had any to start with.

So you think them more important than say a young mother or father
bringing up a family?

If Corbyn wasn't completely gormless he would right now be
asking for categorical guarentees from both Johnson and Gove
that no child with cancer will die as a result of a
shortage of medication following a No Deal Brexit.

No if or buts but a straightforward guarentee.

Why just cancer? Anyone suffering from anything as a direct result of a no
deal Brexit is important too.

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

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

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...

No chemicals to treat the water supply?

Is this country incapable of manufacturing chlorine based chemicals?

Of course not.

The problem is when Boris tried to convince Donald Tusk that the UK
could have all the necessary factories all built and up and runninhg
within the space of a couple of weeks the latter found it difficult not
to burst out laughing

Quite. And all the new customs officers needed. Fishery protection vessels
and crews. And so on ad infinitum.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Why just cancer? Anyone suffering from anything as a direct result of a no
deal Brexit is important too.

You don't work in Corbyn's Press Office by any chance ?

Try bringing it up with the person who thinks children deserve treatment
ahead of others.

I now strongly suspect that you're trolling but I'll give it one more
try.

It appears that there are many people who are quite content
with the idea of a No Deal Brexit.

In order to convince such people (leaving aside child haters
of whom there appear to be more than I may have imagined)
that a No Deal Brexit is a bad idea, and to create the biggest
impact is it better to claim that

a) Thousands of innocent children may well die as a result

b) Thousands of people of all ages may well die as a result

In other words who would want to be potentially responsible
for the deaths of thousands of innocent children ?


michael adams

....

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats dont
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

But the logic is that to sire a new line with a replacement woman requires
a huge investment of energy and resources, not to mention time,

Thats bull**** too, just a bit of ****ing which many
do even when the first ones havent died. Boris has
now gone thru at least 4. His dad far more.

whereas doing what you can to ensure the survival
of the existing wife and child both saves that

But dying before them means they will die anyway, just later.

and also protects the energy and resources already
invested into them, if you see what I mean.

Not when they die anyway when the breadwinner is gone.

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past
it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology;
the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation
of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the better.

On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.
he won't last long

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 21:48:42 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Maybe you could find somebody who is able explain to you the difference
beween chlorine, and "chlorine based chemicals" in language you can
understand.

hint: you'll probably find the manufacture of the latter is a bit more
complicated, if only because it consists of three words rather than
one.

HTH

Does that mean they'll be a shortage of salt in my local chippie ?

Nope, they dont make salt that way.

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

Thats very arguable. Its the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.
he won't last long


Hes been dead for 76 years, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:00:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That¢s bull**** too

....this coming from the biggest senile bull**** artist around! tsk

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On 21 Aug 2019 20:56:39 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.
he won't last long


He’s been dead for 76 years, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

But the spark is still there....

AB

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Why just cancer? Anyone suffering from anything as a direct result of a
no
deal Brexit is important too.

You don't work in Corbyn's Press Office by any chance ?

Try bringing it up with the person who thinks children deserve treatment
ahead of others.

No one does. He just believes that they are better for newspapers to
hyperventilate about.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:52:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Nope

Did you just get another one of your tiny senile online orgasms, you
pathological auto-contradicting senile idiot? G

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:46:36 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That¢s very arguable. It¢s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the better.

YOU calling someone ELSE a "head case"???? YOUUUU??? Of all people? LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:24:27 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Try bringing it up with the person who thinks children deserve treatment
ahead of others.

No one does.

NO ONE talked to you, you lonely senile pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply
of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology;
the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:08:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply
of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology;
the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.


It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a “method of and
apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles”.

he was always a visionary....

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:08:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.

Still five years to go for you to reach that age, eh, you subnormal
85-year-old trolling senile asshole?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 22/08/2019 00:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition
is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring
are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.
sorry I thought you meant that Musk bloke...did tesla not die
pennyless?......

"Rambo" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:08:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply
of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology;
the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring
are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That's very arguable. It's the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.


It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a "method of and
apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles".

he was always a visionary....

And changed the world quite dramatically.

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2019 00:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring
are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.

sorry I thought you meant that Musk bloke...

Yeah, that was obvious.

did tesla not die pennyless?......

Yes, but he did change the world for the better.

Rod Speed wrote:


"Rambo" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:08:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply
of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology;
the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring
are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole .....

That's very arguable. It's the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.


It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a "method of and
apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles".

he was always a visionary....

And changed the world quite dramatically.

Particularly so in the near of Tunguska;

https://exemplore.com/paranormal/Nik...th-Ray-Machine

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 22/08/2019 06:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2019 00:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political
ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in
the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's)
offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole
.....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for
the better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.

sorry I thought you meant that Musk bloke...

Yeah, that was obvious.

did tesla not die* pennyless?......

Yes, but he did change the world for the better.

yes he was brilliant much better than Edison etc...shame he wasted all
his money and died penniless in a hotel I think....

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:47:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a "method of and
apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles".

he was always a visionary....

And changed the world quite dramatically.

YOU didn't and you are more of a head case than him, you useless senile
trolling arsehole from Oz!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:55:40 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


sorry I thought you meant that Musk bloke...

Yeah, that was obvious.

did tesla not die pennyless?......

Yes, but he did change the world for the better.

Just a rare exception that proves the rule that head cases change it for the
worse. Consider your case, you senile useless Usenet troll! It's assholes
like you that totally ****ed up and keep ****ing up Usenet!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2019 06:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2019 00:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2019 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition
is beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken
supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the
past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents
finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider
biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a person's (the man's) offspring
are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the
continuation of
the genetic line, so "women and children first" and a husband
sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats don't
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

but it would be best for them to cast off a headcase like cole
.....

That’s very arguable. It’s the head cases that change the world.

for the worse ....

Not necessarily. Tesla was a head case and changed the world for the
better.

he won't last long

Nikola Tesla did, 90 years in fact.

sorry I thought you meant that Musk bloke...

Yeah, that was obvious.

did tesla not die pennyless?......

Yes, but he did change the world for the better.

yes he was brilliant much better than Edison etc...shame he wasted all his
money and died penniless in a hotel I think....

"Yep