On 23/04/2021 19:58, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:24:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie...

It isn't, it's a statement of scientific fact, and it's the way we are
heading with many things (like car tyres).

For a naturally balanced diet we need to eat meat and meat products.

It's a disingenuous lie to say otherwise, and your belief can only be
base on fanaticism.

snip some text surreptitiously added by T i m

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...

Ironically it doesn't.

It's ironic you think otherwise.

On 23/04/2021 20:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

My criteria is simply. I eat enough meat to ensure I have healthy levels
of B12.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

For most of us the same as if any animal is kicked. Of course you don't
care about the welfare of animals when they're alive.

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

Consumption as part of a natural balanced diet can never be wanton.
You're just jealous we're allowed to eat meat.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?

Please explain, which animals are we considering, the ones than ****
alcohol? Or the ones that **** B12 in the guts of cattle?

On 23/04/2021 20:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?


You first stated baldly "We don't need to eat animals...". You then
state "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation ". And go on to
admit that you would accept in some cases treatment that exploits animals.

That indicates your acceptance that there are circumstances where it is,
as a matter of personal choice, /reasonable/ to exploit animals. So you
accept that there are no absolutes: different people may make different
choices.


PS
I commend to you Gower's "Plain Words". It helped me make the
transition from 6 years in which I wrote only one essay (and that just
for the easy prize money) to 30 years where words ruled.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/184/184520/plain-words/9780241960349.html

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:29:54 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
.... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
....

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

Please keep up the good work! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 23 Apr 2021 19:46:41 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Council meetings are held in public.

Unless they want to discuss something that they don't want us to hear,
as our parish council did when they were involved in some dodgy
deal to get a new sports pavilion/changing rooms. This came to
nought and we still don't know what they have signed up for.
£25K for an 'independent' report for starters from what I have heard.

Then that was an illegal meeting, if the public were excluded.

So you lied to me previously, as a non elected councilor is just a
member of the public and so *could* attend such a meeting?

Or were you saying that the public don't have a say?

Cheers, T i m

On 23 Apr 2021 19:44:43 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Assuming you mean council meetings, only if they are councillors and are
memebers of the committee that is having a meeting.

Council meetings are held in public.

That doesn't mean that the public can participate, though, unless invited to
do so.

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on? Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

Or they might not bother to attend at all, as per Farrige at the EU
meetings (whilst still snouting expenses and getting his EU pension no
doubt)?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:48:32 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

You first stated baldly "We don't need to eat animals...".

Correct, as ever old vegan proves.

You then
state "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation ".

I did, well done.

And go on to
admit that you would accept in some cases treatment that exploits animals.

So what part of that paragraph didn't you get Robin (apart from all of
it by the sound of it)?

That indicates your acceptance that there are circumstances where it is,
as a matter of personal choice, /reasonable/ to exploit animals.

I said 'yes' but *depending* on what the animal had to suffer on my
behalf.

So you
accept that there are no absolutes:

Ah, no, I see you are confusing me with a left brainer. *OF COURSE*
there are no absolutes, that's what "as far as is possible and
practicable' means?

different people may make different
choices.

Of course, as long as it's under the general guide of "as far as is
possible and practicable".

So, no one needs to use bear bile, or force feed ducks, or cut sharks
fins off and throw them back alive to drown, or suckle from a cow
after denying it's offspring both it's milk and life and you can work
your way down to keeping pets from there.

PS
I commend to you Gower's "Plain Words". It helped me make the
transition from 6 years in which I wrote only one essay (and that just
for the easy prize money) to 30 years where words ruled.

Sorry mate, that made little sense to me (or were trying to prove a
point). ;-)

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/184/184520/plain-words/9780241960349.html

See, maybe the issue here is not (wholly) with this author but the
ability for some to comprehend people who *aren't* writing bots.

Lots of writing requires some lateral thinking by the reader, both to
obtain say a 'hidden' meaning, or to spot sarcasm (something the likes
of the Fredxx troll fails on over and over), things that are often
lost if you have to signpost everything for the left brainers.

FWIW, I don't like reading (manuals especially), I find it slow,
boring and (therefore) rarely learn anything from it.

For me the saying should be:

"What you see, you forget (if it's written); what you hear, you
remember; what you do, you understand.

'Of course', if I *have* to read the instructions to do something or a
timetable for a train I will, do and can, but I wouldn't read a book
about say 'Shipping over the years' over a documentary / film on the
same subject.

I have read (books, not newspapers, unless I didn't have a book and
found one on the train), much preferring to have conversations with
people. So reading is something I'll only typically do when there is
absolutely nothing else, like in a hospital waiting room (that has no
TV or someone to talk to).

The Mrs loves reading and has a good few hundred on her Kindle (she
keeps the 'read' one in a 'Read' folder to remind her what ones she
has already read as you don't see the cover regularly like you might
with a paper book).

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 22:00, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:29:54 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear. Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

On 23/04/2021 10:23, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:44:00 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,

OK, that's not a difference then.

and I
also know that no-one can know it all,

See above.

whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

Another lie. You said you spoilt your ballot paper because you said you
weren't informed of the arguments from both sides.

There is no "reasonable idea". No group of economists has ever predicted
any forecast with any certainty. Why do you think differently?

- which of course is an impossibility.

Of course and hence why it was never a target. Please stop lying.

Then stop lying. You said you spoilt your ballot paper because you said
you weren't informed of the arguments from both sides.

You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward,

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important.

That just show blatant ignorance of the subject matter if you call a
choice the same as a toss of a coin. Some of us made an informed choice.

You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do.

Quite.

You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options.

You've totally lost the plot. Why abuse everyone who has a differing
opinion to yours and actually cast their vote, rather than stupidly
spoiling their paper.

You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

8% more people voted for leave than they did remain.

Those who didn't vote, or those who spoiled their vote, might as well
have voted leave, it would have made no difference.

and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

IYO of course. The strange thing is, having a significant majority is
used all around the world to determine the outcome of many such
things, including here.

There was thought there would be no need by politicians of requiring a
significant majority from being so out of touch with the electorate.

Where a referendum has a majority but less than a significant majority
it becomes a failure of democracy, and furthers the cause.

A good case is the Scottish referendum of 1979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_S...ion_referendum

snip further trolling BS

You mean facts you can't stomach?

I love how you trolls start with the 'it seems to me' (or similar) and
then build on that as if it's fact, when it's *always* complete and
utter BS!!

The traits of a narcissist is to dislike good old honest opinion where
it isn't to your liking. If the cap fits wear it.

Are you really convincing yourselves that what you are saying is
actually anything other than complete bollox?

In the bit you snipped it was mentioned you were a brow beaten into
becoming a vegan. Is the truth so painful?

On 23/04/2021 21:08, T i m wrote:

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on? Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

That's a fine example of supposition piled upon supposition in order to
get the answer you want.

--
Spike

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 07:55:37 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 21:08, T i m wrote:

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on? Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

That's a fine example of supposition piled upon supposition in order to
get the answer you want.

BS.

It's a genuine / real-world scenario confirming that 'anyone' can
often attend council meetings and therefore you wouldn't need to be a
councilor to be able to attend or even play a part.

But (left brainer), I'm not thinking that therefore 'just' a member of
the public (the councilors are also 'members of the public') has the
exact same opportunities as a councilor in such matters but given the
mower of social media these days, there is a good chance they may
have, as / when they get the opportunity to be present (even).

All very much part of my main question, not that you would have
understood that of course.

You would think you would learn from all these faceplants by now or is
it you are happy to keep taking them as long as you can be arguing
with someone?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 10:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They say many a true word is said in jest.

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

Do you not understand that a name usually starts with a capital letter.
And it was obvious it was always meant to be an object not some cartoon
character.

It's not me digging the hole.

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Oh yes you did. You hang on my every word.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You really
do have issues don't you?

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

Thank you.

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

I advocate the humane treatment of animals. You don't, and admit to not
caring about animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:00:04 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 10:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They say many a true word is said in jest.

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

Do you not understand that a name usually starts with a capital letter.

I love the way you load your questions in a desperate attempt of
back-peddling. 'OF COURSE' I do (and generally refer to people here in
the same form they present themselves) but what's that got to do with
anything, other than a left brainer trying to make sense of their
mistake?

And it was obvious it was always meant to be an object not some cartoon
character.

Yes, it was, and I played on it, and then you fell into a hole of your
own making then dug that hole deeper. How sad ... ;-(

It's not me digging the hole.

Keep digging.

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Oh yes you did. You hang on my every word.

Bwhahahah (again, I'm laughing *at* you there). You simply cannot
resist replying to EVERY thing I type, yet I can (and do) refrain from
replying to you (apart from here where I'm just enjoying watching you
dig this hole deeper) and you even stated it was your duty! Well, it's
good to see you think you have *some* purpose in life, however
pointless / ineffective you are at it.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You really
do have issues don't you?

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

Thank you.

You are welcome, any time! ;-)

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

I advocate the humane treatment of animals. You don't, and admit to not
caring about animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

Again, more lies and bull**** from the troll in his hole.

I was just watching the TV / weekend breakfast cooking show and Bill
Bailey is on there as a guest.

He was offered some duck and said 'he now feels guilty eating duck as
he has two pet ducks at home ...'

A classic example of cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistency if
there ever was one, where his morals aren't aligned with his actions
and hence why he feels 'guilty'.

He (like most people) are only eating meat in the first place (now, in
2021) because they have been brainwashed into thinking they still have
to do what we had to do, in some circumstances, to survive.

There have been what we call vegans for thousands of years, either by
choice or circumstance.

Meat was something that was rare (for the majority) and so expensive
and to eaten sparingly. When they were killing to survive it makes
sense to make full use of the rest of the animal.

But with depleted cobalt, animals that never eat off the soil or drink
from rivers or lakes are commonly supplemented with B12 (the ground
seeded, their food supplemented, implants or digestive release aids)
so if you are relying on that for your B12 you *are not* living off a
natural diet. Further, the B12 that is given to the animals for you to
*hope* that you absorb would be better absorbed by you when taken
directly, which of course you are doing *anyway* when you eat many
foods fortified with B12.

Do you realise that *every time* you roll out all this BS about my
family 'making' me do anything, it doesn't help your fanatic cause at
all?

I generate the shopping list because I do all the shopping (decisions)
and pre covid used to do all the actual shopping (the Mrs would come
with me etc). I also do all the cooking and so could and do prepare
anything I like, even meat, eggs or fish.

On the way back from a dog walk the other day I fancied a kebab, so
bought some pita bread and a box of salad from the shop we have used
for years (probably 40, first collection then later delivery) and came
home, cooked some vegan chicken pieces and warmed the pita in the oven
and made our own kebabs. We don't have any vegan garlic sauce yet
(forgot to put it on the list, it exists commercially or you can make
your own) but have vegan salad cream so had some of that in there
instead and it was lovely.

If I had want I could have just bought a 'mixed' kebab and eaten it
and *no one* would have stopped me, but *I* didn't want to.

So, you can carry on with all the lies and BS but you can be sure you
will the only one who will believe it for a second (so your efforts
making you look even more sad / pathetic).

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 08:46, T i m wrote:
, Spike wrote:

On 23/04/2021 21:08, T i m wrote:

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on? Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

That's a fine example of supposition piled upon supposition in order to
get the answer you want.

BS.

It's a genuine / real-world scenario confirming that 'anyone' can
often attend council meetings and therefore you wouldn't need to be a
councilor to be able to attend or even play a part.

"Even if...", " ...the chances are...", "...likely to...", and
"...if...", all quoted from the same sentence, add up to piling
supposition upon supposition, even if in your demented state you can't
see that.

The usual deflections follow.

But (left brainer), I'm not thinking that therefore 'just' a member of
the public (the councilors are also 'members of the public') has the
exact same opportunities as a councilor in such matters but given the
mower of social media these days, there is a good chance they may
have, as / when they get the opportunity to be present (even).

All very much part of my main question, not that you would have
understood that of course.

You would think you would learn from all these faceplants by now or is
it you are happy to keep taking them as long as you can be arguing
with someone?

Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet?

Learning how to spell what your continually refer to as 'councilor'
might be a start.

--
Spike

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:44:12 +0000, Spike
wrote:
snip

That's a fine example of supposition piled upon supposition in order to
get the answer you want.

BS.

It's a genuine / real-world scenario confirming that 'anyone' can
often attend council meetings and therefore you wouldn't need to be a
councilor to be able to attend or even play a part.

"Even if...", " ...the chances are...", "...likely to...", and
"...if...", all quoted from the same sentence,

Yup, because unlike you (left brainer), I appreciate very little is
black and white in this world, and because of left brainers, I have to
allow for such formally or you would try to jump on that as well.

Ordinary people would be able to accept all that unstated.

add up to piling
supposition upon supposition,

Nope, it's simply acknowledging the options (see above).

snip toll distractions

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 09:23, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,
and I also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

How do you get to 'a reasonable idea'? Whatever does that mean?

You therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way forward, and covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

Usual ad homs follow:

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

--
Spike

On 24/04/2021 10:52, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
T i m wrote:

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on? Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

That's a fine example of supposition piled upon supposition in order to
get the answer you want.

BS.

It's a genuine / real-world scenario confirming that 'anyone' can
often attend council meetings and therefore you wouldn't need to be a
councilor to be able to attend or even play a part.

"Even if...", " ...the chances are...", "...likely to...", and
"...if...", all quoted from the same sentence,
add up to piling supposition upon supposition,

Yup
Quite.

--
Spike

On 24/04/2021 11:44, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:00:04 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 10:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They say many a true word is said in jest.

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

Do you not understand that a name usually starts with a capital letter.

I love the way you load your questions in a desperate attempt of
back-peddling. 'OF COURSE' I do (and generally refer to people here in
the same form they present themselves) but what's that got to do with
anything, other than a left brainer trying to make sense of their
mistake?

You post was through ignorance, and now you try and pretend otherwise.

And it was obvious it was always meant to be an object not some cartoon
character.

Yes, it was, and I played on it, and then you fell into a hole of your
own making then dug that hole deeper. How sad ... ;-(

I'm not the one with half a brain and a B12 deficiency.

It's not me digging the hole.

Keep digging.

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Oh yes you did. You hang on my every word.

Bwhahahah (again, I'm laughing *at* you there). You simply cannot
resist replying to EVERY thing I type, yet I can (and do) refrain from
replying to you (apart from here where I'm just enjoying watching you
dig this hole deeper) and you even stated it was your duty! Well, it's
good to see you think you have *some* purpose in life, however
pointless / ineffective you are at it.



Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You really
do have issues don't you?

Is that confirmation you have issues?


So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

Thank you.

You are welcome, any time! ;-)

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

I advocate the humane treatment of animals. You don't, and admit to not
caring about animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

Again, more lies and bull**** from the troll in his hole.

Not at all, you are on record as saying you don't care about animal
welfare whilst an animal is alive.

I was just watching the TV / weekend breakfast cooking show and Bill
Bailey is on there as a guest.

He was offered some duck and said 'he now feels guilty eating duck as
he has two pet ducks at home ...'

A classic example of cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistency if
there ever was one, where his morals aren't aligned with his actions
and hence why he feels 'guilty'.

Then that probably doesn't apply to other farm animals he eats. Some
years ago the family kept quails, and I never ate one of their eggs. We
all have likes and dislikes. The difference here is I wouldn't stop
someone eating quail's eggs in the same way Bill Bailey wouldn't stop
anyone eating a duck in a fanatic frenzy.

He (like most people) are only eating meat in the first place (now, in
2021) because they have been brainwashed into thinking they still have
to do what we had to do, in some circumstances, to survive.

No brainwashing. Eating meat is part of a natural, balanced diet.

There have been what we call vegans for thousands of years, either by
choice or circumstance.

Meat was something that was rare (for the majority) and so expensive
and to eaten sparingly. When they were killing to survive it makes
sense to make full use of the rest of the animal.

But with depleted cobalt, animals that never eat off the soil or drink
from rivers or lakes are commonly supplemented with B12 (the ground
seeded, their food supplemented, implants or digestive release aids)

But not B12 supplements, do get it right. They are supplemented with
Cobalt minerals.

so if you are relying on that for your B12 you *are not* living off a
natural diet. Further, the B12 that is given to the animals for you to
*hope* that you absorb would be better absorbed by you when taken
directly, which of course you are doing *anyway* when you eat many
foods fortified with B12.

Once again your belief system is flawed. B12 is rarely fed to animals
but cobalt added as a feed supplement. Do get it right.

Do you realise that *every time* you roll out all this BS about my
family 'making' me do anything, it doesn't help your fanatic cause at
all?

You hanker after meat, and only allowed to eat meat substitutes. Until
recently you would extol the virtues of veggie burgers and tofurkey in a
futile attempt to satisfy your quest to satisfy your craving of eating
meat. A post demonstrated your fear if you should tell your loved ones
if you wanted to cook and eat meat.

I generate the shopping list because I do all the shopping (decisions)
and pre covid used to do all the actual shopping (the Mrs would come
with me etc). I also do all the cooking and so could and do prepare
anything I like, even meat, eggs or fish.

On the way back from a dog walk the other day I fancied a kebab, so
bought some pita bread and a box of salad from the shop we have used
for years (probably 40, first collection then later delivery) and came
home, cooked some vegan chicken pieces and warmed the pita in the oven
and made our own kebabs. We don't have any vegan garlic sauce yet
(forgot to put it on the list, it exists commercially or you can make
your own) but have vegan salad cream so had some of that in there
instead and it was lovely.

Instead of eating real chicken you choose to aid the destruction of
Amazonian rain forest by eating a soy product.

If I had want I could have just bought a 'mixed' kebab and eaten it
and *no one* would have stopped me, but *I* didn't want to.

It's called guilt. You know you wanted to.

So, you can carry on with all the lies and BS but you can be sure you
will the only one who will believe it for a second (so your efforts
making you look even more sad / pathetic).

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

True, I don't expect a reply, there are too many facts here you won't
like to hear.

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
On 23/04/2021 09:23, T i m wrote:

snip

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

I wasn't aware it was of this level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...ultural_Policy

Confirms in 2000 "the average dairy cow in the year 2000 under the
European Union received $913 in subsidies annually, while an average of
$8 per human being was sent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa".

I never liked the Common Agricultural Policy, nor saw the point of food
subsidies in a continent full of obese people.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip unread

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

True, I don't expect a reply,

There you are, expect the unexpected.

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 12:56, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip unread

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

True, I don't expect a reply,

There you are, expect the unexpected.

You fall for sarcasm every time. It's hardly a substantive reply unless
you accept the points I made as factually correct without reservation.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:57:59 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

How do you get to 'a reasonable idea'? Whatever does that mean?

You really are thick aren't you?

You ask a garage to give you an estimate the cost of repair so you can
have a 'reasonable idea' of the costs to then decide to repair /
replace. It can't be 'the cost' because the 'reasonable idea' is based
on another, called an estimate. The estimated would be created by 'a
guess', 'a guesstimate' (based on similar previous similar scenarios),
or a reasonable in-depth analysis of all the parts and labour
required, after possibly some initial dismantling or investigation
(borescope / diagnostics etc).

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU (as is the case for most people of course) so my 'vote' would
have only have been a pure guess (as to what *might* provide most of
us a better future).

It really is strange that you have to ask me to explain such basic
stuff? It's like as if you are either really just very stupid,
trolling (or both)?

snip more troll bs

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 13:08, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:57:59 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

How do you get to 'a reasonable idea'? Whatever does that mean?

You really are thick aren't you?

You ask a garage to give you an estimate the cost of repair so you can
have a 'reasonable idea' of the costs to then decide to repair /
replace. It can't be 'the cost' because the 'reasonable idea' is based
on another, called an estimate. The estimated would be created by 'a
guess', 'a guesstimate' (based on similar previous similar scenarios),
or a reasonable in-depth analysis of all the parts and labour
required, after possibly some initial dismantling or investigation
(borescope / diagnostics etc).

That's not a very good example. A better one would be to ask what a
specific company share value would be in 10 years time. Yet people still
buy shares.

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU (as is the case for most people of course) so my 'vote' would
have only have been a pure guess (as to what *might* provide most of
us a better future).

So please explain what turned you from being indifferent to a fanatical
remainer?

It really is strange that you have to ask me to explain such basic
stuff? It's like as if you are either really just very stupid,
trolling (or both)?

The only thick person here is the one who gave a nonsensical argument of
how you would get a "reasonable idea" for something like a choice for
leave or remain, and equate it with a motor repair.


snip more troll bs

More stuff you don't want to hear.

On 24 Apr 2021 11:51:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on?

They're not a party to what is going on. They're a spectator.

Nice try but no cigar:

"party to (something)
Involved in something, often something clandestine."

Attendance is being 'involved in'.

Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

Their presence won't change anything since (a) such meetings are minuted

Ah, and the minutes are a complete transcription of everything that
was said, intimated and gestured are they?

and
the minutes are publicly available (b)

Irrelevant. See above.

the press will likely be present

Part of my point re potential 'impact'

and
(c) so will oppostion councillors on at least most councils.

And part of my question, where there *are* no opposition councillors.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

If they're not elected then they're not a councillor. Perhaps you mean
"candidate".

Probably (luckily you understood my point).

Or they might not bother to attend at all, as per Farrige at the EU
meetings (whilst still snouting expenses and getting his EU pension no
doubt)?

Certainly Farage was snouting - along with the other 700-odd MEPs and
countless officials in the Commission etc.

Ah, but he was our 'sovereign one. ;-)

And by doing so and showing how
easy it was and how there was no oversight and no accountablity,

Which isn't actually true of course.

he showed how
rotten the entire structure was and remains so to this day.

Whist benefiting from it personally. Hypocrisy anyone?

So, what have we learned so far.

Anyone can turn up to (most?) council meetings and monitor the
progress (and therefore potentially impact the outcome, even if not
allowed to directly participate) therefore being a councillor may not
offer any real advantage.

Councillors are unlikely to champion any cause that is proven to be
beneficial to the people, (like their health, the environment and
animal suffering) if it conflicts with their own morals and ethics.

So, the conclusion could be that only maybe a coalition of 'parties'
may be worth having but could in turn hamper and positive projects
'because'.

eg, The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no interest
in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc).

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you*know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?
That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

Because Tim is an utter bigot, all he sees in everybody is the
reflection of his own bigotry.

--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On 24/04/2021 12:08, T i m wrote:

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU

What special powers - apart from having halls a brain - made you 'know'
such a thing?


--
Spike

On 20/04/2021 19:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...) or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Irrespective we will still bother to attend in spite of them
moving the polling station from 50 to 150 paces away. ;-(

You answered your own questions - all three of them - when you said in
a later post "The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no
interest in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc)".

Why hadn't you worked this out before you posted?

HTH


--
Spike

On 24/04/2021 13:38, T i m wrote:
On 24 Apr 2021 11:51:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on?

They're not a party to what is going on. They're a spectator.

Nice try but no cigar:

"party to (something)
Involved in something, often something clandestine."

Attendance is being 'involved in'.

Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

Their presence won't change anything since (a) such meetings are minuted

Ah, and the minutes are a complete transcription of everything that
was said, intimated and gestured are they?

and
the minutes are publicly available (b)

Irrelevant. See above.

the press will likely be present

Part of my point re potential 'impact'

and
(c) so will oppostion councillors on at least most councils.

And part of my question, where there *are* no opposition councillors.

So a non elected councilor could attend and is likely to make a
(passive) impact on proceedings.

If they're not elected then they're not a councillor. Perhaps you mean
"candidate".

Probably (luckily you understood my point).

Or they might not bother to attend at all, as per Farrige at the EU
meetings (whilst still snouting expenses and getting his EU pension no
doubt)?

Certainly Farage was snouting - along with the other 700-odd MEPs and
countless officials in the Commission etc.

Ah, but he was our 'sovereign one. ;-)

Quite he ensured that this snouting stopped.

And by doing so and showing how
easy it was and how there was no oversight and no accountablity,

Which isn't actually true of course.

I don't see MEP expenses being published.

he showed how
rotten the entire structure was and remains so to this day.

Whist benefiting from it personally. Hypocrisy anyone?

No, the fact you see it as hypocrisy goes to demonstrate how
unaccountable Brussels is.

The only hypocrite is the one who is a fanatical remainer but doesn't
want someone with differing views to claim their MEP salary and expenses.

So, what have we learned so far.

Anyone can turn up to (most?) council meetings and monitor the
progress (and therefore potentially impact the outcome, even if not
allowed to directly participate) therefore being a councillor may not
offer any real advantage.

Not true, as a councillor you get to vote on motions.

Councillors are unlikely to champion any cause that is proven to be
beneficial to the people, (like their health, the environment and
animal suffering) if it conflicts with their own morals and ethics.

No, some do, and truly represent people with differing views and morals.
I do understand how difficult that would be for you to comprehend.

So, the conclusion could be that only maybe a coalition of 'parties'
may be worth having but could in turn hamper and positive projects
'because'.

eg, The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no interest
in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc).

It's called democracy. I guess you would prefer to live in China?

If you have no interest then why spoil your paper. I'm coming to the
conclusion only those incapable of reasoned thought would spoil their paper.

It is generally possible for a lay person to speak at a council meeting
as per this link:

https://www.east-northamptonshire.go...tee_meetings/2

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:42:53 +0000, Spike
wrote:
snip

[1] Irrespective we will still bother to attend in spite of them
moving the polling station from 50 to 150 paces away. ;-(

You answered your own questions - all three of them - when you said in
a later post "The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no
interest in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc)".

Oh, and I did that *first* did I?

Why hadn't you worked this out before you posted?

See, unlike you (thick trolls), I'm open to other peoples POV and
especially to see if there really was a good reason for me to vote in
this instance.

Given the majority of wards in the borough are heavily biased to one
party and the 'other' partly only likely to hold one ward, the only
'power' my vote could have is retaining that one ward with that
opposition party.

The question was 'would it be a good thing' to keep that situation, to
provide some formal opposition to the incumbent and it seems:

1) Their power might only be marginal over the general public / media
/ interested groups (re keeping the incumbent in check).

2) They could also be counter-productive to a generally good
intentioned and efficient council.

Q. Does it seem that the current council is doing any more or less
than any other council under the current circumstances (or before)? I
wouldn't know because I've never lived anywhere else so I'm not aware
of us being any worse / better off than other boroughs I've visited. I
understand we have pretty low rates compared with some.

I also know I have nothing to complain about and most things I've
reported (like fly tips and broken street furniture / secret lights
etc) seem to have been dealt with in a reasonable timescale.

The only time one of my requests hasn't been acted on (better signage
to help articulated lorries entering a restricted area after hours and
more importantly getting stuck) were not introduced but that was
'highways' for the county, not a local council issue.

So, what issues / matters are going to determine how you vote and is
it likely to be different to what you have voted previously (assuming
you are registered to vote / in this country)?


Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 14:35, Spike wrote:
On 24/04/2021 12:08, T i m wrote:

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU

What special powers - apart from having halls a brain - made you 'know'
such a thing?


he is an Idealist who thinks he is a Realist. It's all in his mind but
he thinks its all real and out there. Mostly people like this end up on
the Left, because that is exactly what the Left is - ideas in peoples
minds projected on to the world and taken for real.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 24 Apr 2021 15:40:45 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 24 Apr 2021 at 13:38:07 BST, T i m wrote:

On 24 Apr 2021 11:51:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on?

They're not a party to what is going on. They're a spectator.

Nice try but no cigar:

"party to (something)
Involved in something, often something clandestine."

AISB, they are a spectator.

And AISB, they aren't as far as both potentially managing the
ongoing's and therefore the impact thereafter. Have you never seen
someone ask another to 'have a word in private' or wondered why they
might do that?

Unless invited to address the meeting.

See above. 'Most people' *will* modify their words / actions if they
are being monitored by someone (anyone) who may have the ability to
'report' the nuisances of any 'goings on'.

In those
cases, usually, they say their piece and then they're done.

Yes.

They aren't
allowed to take part in any subsequent discussion or debate amoongst the
councillors.

They don't need to (to have some impact) as long as they are present.

Attendance is being 'involved in'.

Not unless they're invited to speak.

Nope. That's not what the dictionary says.

"involved, adjective, someone who is involved in something takes part
in it", It doesn't require an 'active part.


Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

Their presence won't change anything since (a) such meetings are minuted

Ah, and the minutes are a complete transcription of everything that
was said, intimated and gestured are they?

Minutes never are.

So can't offer a full and complete reiteration of the proceedings.

the press will likely be present

Part of my point re potential 'impact'

The press will be there if something that interests them is up for discussion.

The press *may* be there ...

Not otherwise. And not because Joe Soap happens to be there.

Of course it will as they have no idea of 'Joe Soaps' intentions.

and
(c) so will oppostion councillors on at least most councils.

And part of my question, where there *are* no opposition councillors.

I can't immediately find such a council;

Why would that impact my question? The candidate representing the one
of many wards who rang me personally highlighted the fact that they
could easily loose it.

I thought Hull was one such but
apparently not. In any case, where one party holds all the seats you will find
that it splits into factions. So there will always be an opposition of some
sort.

Infighting you mean? So yet another suggestion that my vote will make
little

And by doing so and showing how
easy it was and how there was no oversight and no accountablity,

Which isn't actually true of course.

Yes it is. MEPs don't have to justify their expenses claims.

So, they could put in anything they liked and would never get pulled
up over it?

he showed how
rotten the entire structure was and remains so to this day.

Whist benefiting from it personally. Hypocrisy anyone?

So, what have we learned so far.

You never learn anything, so the idea of you doing such a summary is risible.

I think you are getting confused with me just not rolling over and
accepting anything you say.

Anyone can turn up to (most?) council meetings and monitor the
progress (and therefore potentially impact the outcome, even if not
allowed to directly participate) therefore being a councillor may not
offer any real advantage.

As a councillor you get to affect policy and decide about things. And vote on
them.

Appreciated. But what about one councillor versus 9?

Councillors are unlikely to champion any cause that is proven to be
beneficial to the people, (like their health, the environment and
animal suffering) if it conflicts with their own morals and ethics.

This is a mere assertion on your part not backed by by anything.

Agreed ... other than from my personal experience of / with 'people'.

How many
councillors do you know,

3?

and with how many have you discussed what they
actually do at the council,

2.

or asked them what they have achieved or are
working on.

1.

So, the conclusion could be that only maybe a coalition of 'parties'
may be worth having but could in turn hamper and positive projects
'because'.

'because' what?

No, that was it, 'because' ... the existence of something (a coalition
in this case).

eg, The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no interest
in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc).

So that's your conclusion,

So far, yes.

based on no evidence,

See above.

no research,

Correct (explained previously).

no knowledge of
what councillors do

See above. We have known one personally for over 30 years and spent
time with them several times.

or how they organise themselves.

See above.

Typical of you, really.

Or not, now you know how much of an ass your assumptions have made of
you.

'making the effort' to spoil your paper, eh?

Yup, effort over and above all those who don't bother or *even*, put
no effort into actually placing their vote.

Gosh, I'll alert the media to
your tremendous sacrifice and contribution to democracy and making the world a
better, safer place to live in.

That's a bit OTT considering?

Thanks for continuing to live down to my expectations.

And thank you for confirming my real-world understanding of how
pointless it all is (my vote) in this case (specifically).

I will still bother though as I want to maintain my right, even if
it's currently not democracy as I would like to play a part in.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:35:05 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 12:08, T i m wrote:

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU

What special powers - apart from having halls a brain - made you 'know'
such a thing?

I'm guessing that was supposed to be 'half' up there, as you were so
excitedly trying to get the little jibe in?

So, I appreciate it's probably impossible to explain the whole concept
of brain lateralisation to a left brainer but there is no suggestion
that anyone had 'half a brain', but that one side is 'dominant',
resulting in certain character traits. So like someone might be
refereed to as a 'leftie' for their political views, they may only be
'left of centre', it's the same with brain lateralisation.

As to the question, given *NONE OF US* currently know if leaving the
EU is going to be the 'good thing' we were promised by the fanatic
Leavers, anyone who voted Leave did so as a gamble (hence what appears
to you as my 'super power'). At least voting remain was a call to
continue with what we were doing at the time, *including* however that
might change in the future and if it changed to the detriment of 'most
people', we *could* do something about it then.

One is an active change, the other isn't (there, you should be able to
deal with that, 'left brainer', 'binary'!). ;-)

OOI, which badge do you wear with the most pride, 'Troll' or 'Left
brainer'?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 14:21:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you*know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?
That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

Because Tim is an utter bigot, all he sees in everybody is the
reflection of his own bigotry.

What's even worse, is someone (let's call them 'a coward) who believes
every word he reads as filtered though a troll.

What they do is make some point, then repeat it as if someone 'hadn't
heard of it', like it diminishes *every* other pro or con on the
subject or is relevant to anything (when it isn't).


Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 19:01, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 14:21:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you*know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?
That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

Because Tim is an utter bigot, all he sees in everybody is the
reflection of his own bigotry.

What's even worse, is someone (let's call them 'a coward) who believes
every word he reads as filtered though a troll.

What they do is make some point, then repeat it as if someone 'hadn't
heard of it', like it diminishes *every* other pro or con on the
subject or is relevant to anything (when it isn't).

**** me. That sounds just like T i m that you're talking about there mate.

D i m, someone's impersonating you!

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you*know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?
That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

Because Tim is an utter bigot, all he sees in everybody is the
reflection of his own bigotry.

Point of order.. a modern dairy cow may have a working life of many
lactations (Tim will argue this may be as short as one but reflects the
life of a culled poor producer) and the meat will end in the food chain
somewhere.

I'm not sure how much 800bucks is but it helps keep down the price of
milk and may be much less now it is not being paid by the EU:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 19:05:25 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

What they do is make some point, then repeat it as if someone 'hadn't
heard of it', like it diminishes *every* other pro or con on the
subject or is relevant to anything (when it isn't).

**** me.

No thanks, the last thing I'm interested in is bestiality (troll).

That sounds just like T i m that you're talking about there mate.

No, don't, oh how we laughed! I'm really not sure your fascination
with me is healthy mate. Have the special tablets worn off? ;-)

D i m, someone's impersonating you!

Hey, I take it as a complement, 'Dick'. [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] This is really going to screw up DickHeadxx, he won't realise I
knew you knew it was me and try to win from it! (Bless).

p.s. Are you trolls so disengaged with the real world that all you can
do is follow my every word? Maybe I should get on social media,
imagine how many followers I'd have (with 'follower' being key here)!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 19:23:43 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Point of order.. a modern dairy cow may have a working life of many
lactations

So what is that OOI, they calve every year for 6-7 years?

(Tim will argue this may be as short as one

Sad.

but reflects the
life of a culled poor producer)

So not up to 'industrial output levels'?

and the meat will end in the food chain
somewhere.

Good to know (well, except for her).

I'm not sure how much 800bucks is but it helps keep down the price of
milk and may be much less now it is not being paid by the EU:-)

Many dairys (and certainly those seen on the likes of Countryfile that
could be relatively small) seem to be diversifying into more
'specialist' products, like 'craft cheeses and ice cream' etc to be
able to make a living? We had a couple of vegan Magnum ice creams on
the way home from our walk earlier, very nice. ;-)

This is this down to overproduction and long-term diminishing demand,
according to this:

"The rise of Veganism

The downward trend in consumption of dairy has been propelled by the
surge in the number of people following special diets, such as vegan
and lactose free, who perceive them to be healthier and more ethical.
Right now, this revolution is being supercharged by well publicised
and growing environmental concerns about the negative impact of
farming on climate change.

This combination of factors is fuelling rapid growth in the market for
plant based milk alternatives (+18% in 2019), such as soya, almond and
oat milks, at the expense of cows’ milk. Accordingly, a number of
larger players in the dairy market are having to invest heavily in
their dairy-free alternative ranges in order to protect overall market
share from new entrants, such as Oatly, Fairlife and Innocent Drinks"

https://home.kpmg/uk/en/home/insight...itability.html

If we can produce an alternative from plants that uses less resources
(especially water) and with NONE of the exploitation, why wouldn't
you?

Drinking the fluid that was produced to feed the young of a different
species is neither natural nor something many humans (65-70%) can
seven tolerate (after all this time, suggesting it isn't something we
*should* have been consuming in the first place)? And it never was of
course, that's what our own Mums were there for.

We aren't lactose intolerant, we just aren't baby cows. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:04:24 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 12:56, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip unread

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

True, I don't expect a reply,

There you are, expect the unexpected.

You fall for sarcasm every time.

Oh the irony, mirroring much!

snip trolling

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 21:07, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:04:24 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 12:56, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:36 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip unread

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

True, I don't expect a reply,

There you are, expect the unexpected.

You fall for sarcasm every time.

Oh the irony, mirroring much!

It wasn't intended a a mirror, more the choice of words I knew there was
a fighting chance for you to understand.

snip trolling

I wouldn't say the following is trolling, "It's hardly a substantive
reply unless you accept the points I made as factually correct without
reservation."

Of course any reply would only serve to dig your own hole even deeper.