On 24/04/2021 16:50, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
T i m wrote:

[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 is that relevant to the issue of you answering your own questions?


--
Spike

On 24/04/2021 17:56, T i m wrote:
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?

Nope, it's just a typo, unlike repeatedly using a non-word like 'councilor'.

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').

By the same token, *NONE OF US* currently know if staying in the
EU would have been the 'good thing' we were promised by the fanatic
Remainers, anyone who voted Remain, or spoiled their paper did so as a
gamble. The dreadful fiasco of the EU killing its own people via its
glacial approach to vaccination suggests we were well out of it.

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.

But that's exactly the point we got to when the Referendum was held!

The popularity of the EEC/EC/EU fell from 66 percent in favour to 52
percent against in ~40 years. We had reached the point where we could
'do something about it', and did!

You are living through precisely the scenario you mentioned, so you
should be proud you saw it coming, and prepared so hard for for it...not.


--
Spike

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 23:41:17 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

snip
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,

No, I know, because you don't 'get' that level of communication
(everything isn't spelled out in detail and signposted) you do what
you think is right / appropriate but rarely is. Like I say, you can't
help it.

more the choice of words I knew there was
a fighting chance for you to understand.

Aw bless, can you not see the irony of that (and more mirroring)?

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 you wouldn't, because you are a troll and soooo desperate to
talk to someone, even if that includes getting ****ed on, you will do
*anything* to stimulate a reply.

Stating that no reply means anything at all, other than 'no reply'
etc and especially some trumped up BS, is a deluded fantasy and common
trolling tactic.

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

And more mirroring.

Look, if you are confused, scared, lonely and just need to talk to
someone, *my* email address is valid as long as you promise (if you
can etc) to cut out all the bollox.

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 11:44, Spike wrote:
Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet?

He has two left feet, and both of them are planted in his
mouth. Makes standing upright a tad tricky.

Andrew

On 24 Apr 2021 21:35:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

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?

A member of the public attending such a meeting doesn't have any opportunity
to "have a word in private".

Oh you left brainers are so difficult to communicate with!

I didn't suggest the saying related to the actual situation of being
in a council meeting but the *point* that there are often several
levels / layers of communication between people / groups / countries,
there is what is done in open and what is done 'beside the scenes'.

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

You have the council chanmber where the
councillors are debating. You have a spectators' gallery where the public is.

I know, I've both been and seen on TV.

These are separate spaces, just like in Parliament. The councillors can ignore
completely that public if they feel like it.

Of course, but I'm not talking about 'heckling'.

Ok, let's try it another way. Have you ever done anything where it
impacted what or how you did what you did because others or someone
was or could have been (just) watching? Maybe you haven't because you
have no 'self awareness', not unusual in left brainers (they do what
they do without considering how it looks to others or what others may
feel / consider).

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'.

The minutes, the press, and opposition members will already do that job.

Ok ...

You have already admitted the minutes are not a complete 'recording'
on the entire process (I have been in enough minuted meetings to know
how that works). Strike 1.

The press many not and are likely not to be there for most low profile
council meetings. Strike 2.

By 'opposition members' do you mean what could be one 'opposition
membeR' (the one other councillor representing one ward in the
borough) or 'candidates' from other parties (but not including the
public which is all non-elected candidates actually are)?

You
don't naively imagine, do you, that some councillors planning a scam are going
to discuss that publicly in the council chamber are you, with that as an item
on the published agenda. Give over.

Nope, and only someone who didn't really have a grasp of what I'm
taking about would get / suggest such.

I am talking about the smaller things (obviously I thought) that they
may mention in passing (to each other) that can give clues to future
plans that could impact people negatively. Things often get 'sneaked
in' (to discussion / future plans) by an expression or by vague
phrasing or even body language and the question was, would our 1 in 10
opposition be able to do any more / with / about that than Joe Public?

If he (and not Joe public) can *always* play a fully interactive part
then he *does* have greater power than them in_that_scenario (he could
then ask questions and try to pin them down (on the record) etc) but
at the same time, his(/her) awareness and presence could spoil a good
project, simply because it goes against opposition policies, even if
it is appreciated by the residents in general (stating the obvious
etc).

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.

Nope.

OFFS.

Chances are the councillors will not even notice them.

'Chances are' .... they would *if* they are on a sticky wicket or
trying to sidestep public conversation about something. They *WILL BE*
aware there are 'extra ears' that may hear something that never makes
the minutes.

So y'see, mere
"attendance" won't do.

See above (and remember, I have been to both council and other
minuited meetings).

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

The press *may* be there ...

The press will have studied the agenda.

Quite and so 'may' be there to cover anything *knowingly* likely to be
big or controversial. They may not for some potential background
matter that also carries inter councillor communications about
something else.

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.

Loose? I think you mean lose. And in any case, lose what?

OFFS, that / their / his ward. Borough with say 10 wards. 9 of them
are currently controlled by one political party, and ONE by one other
(If I understand this whole ward thing)?


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

Little what? Difference?

Well done, yes! ;-)

Councillor got in in this ward by one vote, some
12-odd years ago.

Not the real point in this case. The question was actually even if (by
whatever votes), they managed to retain the 1 in 10, how much 'power'
would they have (more to veto than support etc)?

And infighting - sure. So what. It's what humans do.

OK, It's just that I wasn't sure if your programming had covered that
part of 'what humans do' yet. ;-)

Are you
a human - or are you from Vega?

Of the two of us, you are more likely to be an off worlder
(particularly from Mars ... as they seem to like eating all sorts of
animals, including humans if TWOTW is to believed). ;-)

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?

I have a feeling they don't have to submit anything.

Well, in principle, they are in a position of trust but we know that
counts for f-all ITRW. 'Cash for questions', greasing palms etc.

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.

You mean you can't distinguish between when someone is trying to aid you with
information, when someone is taking the ****, or just giving you a hard time?
Gosh.

Yes, I can and why I'm actually talking to you, trying to understand,
.... however, you really need to learn that just because you say it,
doesn't mean it's true, as has been proven, even in this thread by
people correcting *you*.

So, my questioning you isn't me simply denying your information or
'help', but trying to pin it down in ways you may not have even
considered because you are very much more politically minded and (I
believe) are often involved in things like the voting process (even if
only sharpening the pencils). weg

I'm treating it as a discussion where I may play 'devils advocate' to
try to get you to see a point and you might be thinking it more you
lecturing me with your 'facts', when many things are no more than your
opinion / understanding.

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?

Well you won't if you're the sole opposition councillor. But you are
nonetheless there at the meetings and are in a position to observe and note
any b/s and make sure the press are well-informed.

Ok, so that *could* be a good thing, worth supporting (voting for the
1 in 10 opposition candidate etc) (unless what could be a good project
in the end get's stymied(sp?) before it gets off the ground because of
a biased view, (falsely) reported to the media etc (and we know that
does happen)).

And you can prepare
leaflets and distribute them to your constituents on a regular basis, in which
you tell the public what a horlicks the council is making of whatever it is.

OK, good point. Not really thought of inter-election canvassing
before. I'm guessing that's allowed then? Is it only during the run-up
to a government election they have to balance the PPBs out equally?

This is known as "holding the council (or government) to account" and it's
what the opposition's job is when they are not running things.

Yes, I know. But as an aside to that here, can they not also put
'spanners in the works' screwing up otherwise 'good ideas' (simply
because they conflict with the political leanings etc)?

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'.

But have you not noticed that people don't agree on things.

Oh please. Have you just started here? ;-)

They differ about
how things should be done.

See above.

You seem to think that there is one "right and
obvious" way to get something done and that all should "obviously" just agree
to it.

Nope, not always.

Sometimes that is the case,

Quite?

but more often than not it isn't.

Agreed. However, if we *knew* 100% how to differentiate between all
those things, life (and positive progress for 'most people') would be
easy eh. ;-)

For example. I love animals and couldn't hurt one so when I was given
a chance to align my morals with my actions, I changed my lifestyle to
reflect my morals. Easy, black and white, wish I'd done it (much )
sooner.

Now, what makes it easy for all of us is (currently) daughter does our
shopping and so knows where to get what ... and I do all the cooking
and it's only for the Mrs and I, so no 'other' people to satisfy
(elderly parents who don't 'get it' or fussy eater kids etc).

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.

Well that's more than most I agree but not that many, in terms of getting a
rounded picture of what they're like.

Well, in addition I've been to several events where maybe 8 (of the
10) councillors have been present and have engaged conversation with
some of them after the meal / presentation etc. For daughter it's been
even more, ride sharing, personal meetups to discuss community
projects, guiding them round facilities (publicly and on the QT [1]
etc). So we have a reasonable idea of the sort of people that make
most councillors and in the main they are just the 'ordinary people'
one should see them as. Most ... (therefore) Some I wouldn't really
trust to mow my lawn and others are very friendly and sociable who may
not have what it takes to 'get things done'.

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).

What does "hamper and positive projects" mean?

Sorry, 'hamper anY positive projects'. (Covered above probably).

eg. Merely because of the very 'human interest' / 'party politics',
good things could suffer.

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.

I haven't made any assumptions.

You did see above. 'no knowledge of what councillors do'.

'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?

No.

So 'yes' to that bit then.

I'd say you not bothering at all most accurately reflects your position.

Agreed. Given that I'm not 'politically minded' (and have never been)
I'm not (therefore) politically aware AND don't have any issues or
'axes to grind' re the current situation, what / who would I vote FOR?
They are all promising a similar range of things, like every Miss
World wanting 'World peace' and to help the children.

And remember that's what we are supposed to do, we are voting FOR
someone (that's what it says on all the leaflets and banners), it's
not really ideal (democratically) that we vote strategically or
against someone. I'm not saying we can't or don't (obviously), just
it's not an in / out ballot but (supposedly) a pro-active choice
between several.


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.

Then you need to define what would be democracy as you'd like to see it.

To you or to the council / government?

Either way, some form of 'Political awareness' testing, some social
profiling and EQ tests for a start g, plus decent margins on counts,
none of this 51:49 BS. The government / council (/Police) are
supposed to be looking after us 'by consent' ... on our behalf, so
they need to demonstrate their full suitability to the task, ideally
from some history of doing such, not just because they put themselves
up for it and enough schmucks fall for their snakeoil.

Being able to vote for Mrs Thatcher because 'I like the colour of her
dress' or Farrige 'because he's a beer drinking, smoking lout' are not
necessarily 'pertinent credentials' for managing all of us effectively
and efficiently and with appropriate levels of compassion and empathy.

Make it a proper paying job where the real motivators and leaders of
industry might want to apply and hopefully the other tests would stop
people voting for the nutters, like Trump.

Had they been right (the Trump voters), he would have done better and
have been in his second term by now. QED.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Often the time where you get a good insight about someones real
goals, drive, attitude and personality.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 08:08:07 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 16:50, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
T i m wrote:

[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 is that relevant to the issue of you answering your own questions?

Because the timing is relevant (doh), as you stated yourself!

"when you said in a later post" ...

Ask question.
Get replies.
Discuss replies.
Evaluate information.
State conclusion.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:
Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:
Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 08:22:50 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 17:56, T i m wrote:
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?

Nope, it's just a typo,

So it wasn't supposed to be half?

What was the 'halls a brain' if not a jibe?

So, the honest answer was yes to both points?

unlike repeatedly using a non-word like 'councilor'.

Oh, and you think those two things are comparable do you?

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

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').

By the same token, *NONE OF US* currently know if staying in the
EU would have been the 'good thing'

I *NEVER* said it would, but at least it was a known *then* and ITRW,
unlikely to change for the worse quickly.

snip

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.

But that's exactly the point we got to when the Referendum was held!

Only for 1/3rd of the electorate it seems who *actively* voted to
leave.

The popularity of the EEC/EC/EU fell from 66 percent in favour to 52
percent against in ~40 years. We had reached the point where we could
'do something about it', and did!

A minority of the electorate did you mean?

You are living through precisely the scenario you mentioned, so you
should be proud you saw it coming, and prepared so hard for for it...not.

OK, just to show you aren't a crazy fanatic, state 5 positive and 5
negative re our membership of the EU. Not 'in your' (likely heavily
biased opinion), but real checkable facts.

I mean, you obviously did all the research, considered the pros and
cons so should be able to present them easily?

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:
Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Cheers, T i m


Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:11:53 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:
Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.


Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

Why would I when it's a fact? And 'of course' I didn't suggest that
applied to 'all lawyers', before you try to imply I did in your
desperate efforts to distract your way out of anything.

Can I prove it personally and from experience, no. Can it be proven
from other cases that have actually happened, I'm sure if you look
hard enough.

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 10:22, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 24/04/2021 16:50, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
T i m wrote:

[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 is that relevant to the issue of you answering your own questions?

Because the timing is relevant (doh), as you stated yourself!

"when you said in a later post" ...

Ask question.
Get replies.
Discuss replies.
Evaluate information.
State conclusion.

Keep in mind that we've had four and a half years of your ranting on
about voting, spoiled papers, majorities, and democracy, and now it
turns out you've confirmed that you know nothing about it! Don't tell me
that you see that as rational behaviour.

--
Spike

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

--
Spike

On 25/04/2021 14:18, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:
On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

Why would I when it's a fact? And 'of course' I didn't suggest that
applied to 'all lawyers', before you try to imply I did in your
desperate efforts to distract your way out of anything.

Can I prove it personally and from experience, no. Can it be proven
from other cases that have actually happened, I'm sure if you look
hard enough.

IOW, you made it up.

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

--
Spike

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:59 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 14:18, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:
On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

Why would I when it's a fact? And 'of course' I didn't suggest that
applied to 'all lawyers', before you try to imply I did in your
desperate efforts to distract your way out of anything.

Can I prove it personally and from experience, no. Can it be proven
from other cases that have actually happened, I'm sure if you look
hard enough.

IOW, you made it up.

You really are another idiot aren't you, unless you actually think no
lawyer has ever done a behind the scenes deal with another ... or a
fighter has never thrown the game?

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

Don't have to be to be aware of such things, you just don't need to be
a stupid blinkered troll.

Actually it's worse, being a left brainer you will make up whatever
best fits your understanding of the world and stay with it as you dig
your hole to the centre of the earth.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 16:58, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:18, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:
On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

Why would I when it's a fact? And 'of course' I didn't suggest that
applied to 'all lawyers', before you try to imply I did in your
desperate efforts to distract your way out of anything.

Can I prove it personally and from experience, no. Can it be proven
from other cases that have actually happened, I'm sure if you look
hard enough.

IOW, you made it up.

You really are another idiot aren't you, unless you actually think no
lawyer has ever done a behind the scenes deal with another ... or a
fighter has never thrown the game?

Again having been caught out making things up, you turn to abuse and
deflection.

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

Don't have to be to be aware of such things, you just don't need to be
a stupid blinkered troll.

As above.

Actually it's worse, being a left brainer you will make up whatever
best fits your understanding of the world and stay with it as you dig
your hole to the centre of the earth.

So, you got caught out again. Tough luck,


--
Spike

On 25/04/2021 17:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

Try the UK-English dictionary instead of the US-English one, then you
wont have to alter the UK spellings that get auto-corrected....


--
Spike

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Keep in mind that we've had four and a half years of your ranting on
about voting, spoiled papers, majorities, and democracy, and now it
turns out you've confirmed that you know nothing about it!

Oh dear oh dear. I guess you can't help it, being a left brainer and
all, trying to conflate not having a specific political stance but
being interested how we make important decisions that will affect
everyone.

Don't tell me
that you see that as rational behaviour.

Of course it is and there is little point 'telling' you anything
because 1) you aren't interested, 2) don't listen and 3) are just a
troll and 4) you know it all, given how seldom you post a question
here (once this year so far from a quick scan) but how keen you are to
join in with every one of mine?

And did you know it's a discussion group, where people 'discuss'
things (ideally DIY related, and if not directly, marked OT, something
I do every time), so I really hope you are doing this harassment thing
with everone here or it might look like it's a personal hate crime
against me or vegans?

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:16:53 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

You really are another idiot aren't you, unless you actually think no
lawyer has ever done a behind the scenes deal with another ... or a
fighter has never thrown the game?

Again having been caught out making things up, you turn to abuse and
deflection.

Bwhahahaha. Hey, you are serious aren't you, so let me laugh in your
face even louder BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

Don't have to be to be aware of such things, you just don't need to be
a stupid blinkered troll.

As above.

Agreed, you are just a stupid troll.

Actually it's worse, being a left brainer you will make up whatever
best fits your understanding of the world and stay with it as you dig
your hole to the centre of the earth.

So, you got caught out again. Tough luck,

Bwhahaha ... no, please keep this up, it's hilarious!

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:17:13 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 17:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

Try the UK-English dictionary instead of the US-English one, then you
wont have to alter the UK spellings that get auto-corrected....

Aww, bless, thanks for the attempt at assistance. All I can see for FA
V2.0 is the 'English (International)' dictionary I currently have
installed and no option (that I can see) of anything different.

Cheers, T i m

On 25 Apr 2021 17:26:20 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 18:04:34 BST, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

In what way is your comment in any way at all relevant to what Spike said?
What he said was "Change the dictionary", which is correct. IOW, tell it to
use the British English one instead of the US English one.

Oh FFS, you left brainers!

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

So, I was 'way ahead' of Spike and you from a simple comprehension POV
as well. ;-(

And this is part of the problem for left brainers, they don't think
(or even consider) that anyone else might actually know anything, or
consider any 'history' when a troll offers help?

It's like dealing with someone suffering with a bi-polar disorder,
they blow hot and cold and *they* don't realise when they are what.

It can be similar after they have had a drink etc.

HTH.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 16:17, Spike wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:18, T i m wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 25/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:24:51 +0100, Andrew
wrote:
On 25/04/2021 11:18, T i m wrote:

Examples like opposing lawyers making deals with each other in the
toilets during a court recession, where one takes the fall then they
spilt the costs afterwards.

Ah, so now you are an expert on 'legal' matters then ?.

Ah, you are still a **** then.

Are you going to admit that your assertion that 'lawyers'
do secret deals in the toilet is complete bollox then ?

Why would I when it's a fact? And 'of course' I didn't suggest that
applied to 'all lawyers', before you try to imply I did in your
desperate efforts to distract your way out of anything.

Can I prove it personally and from experience, no. Can it be proven
from other cases that have actually happened, I'm sure if you look
hard enough.

IOW, you made it up.

He's seen it on TV.
Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.


I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

On 25 Apr 2021 17:17:09 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 16:17:46 BST, Spike wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Well obvs,

Ironically, not in this case.

and the same applies to such as Word.

Agreed, with 'other people', typically people who haven't spent most
of their career in IT / Support.

But people appear very often
to be unable to figure out even something as simple as changing the default
dictionary.

Or even pretty well anything else past what they know, have been told
or stumble upon, luckily for all the IT guys. ;-)

Or, as I found at work, to understand that a word processor is not
a ****ing typewriter, so you don't need to press Return 20 times at the end of
a document. How do I know they were doing that? By the number of people who
came up to me at work and asked me why the printer was giving them a blank
sheet of paper as the last page when they printed their document.

Yup, and when talking to their friends about what they do they say
they 'use computers', when they are really dabbling with a WP, on a
computer.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:08:26 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

He's seen it on TV.

Yes, best if we keep it to that shall we.

Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.

Unsurprisingly, my real world seem to be more real than yours, troll.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 19:53, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:08:26 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

He's seen it on TV.

Yes, best if we keep it to that shall we.

Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.

Unsurprisingly, my real world seem to be more real than yours, troll.

The very definition of delusional.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:09:17 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 19:53, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:08:26 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

He's seen it on TV.

Yes, best if we keep it to that shall we.

Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.

Unsurprisingly, my real world seem to be more real than yours, troll.

The very definition of delusional.

Talking of definitions, here is the definition of cowardice and denial
(yours).

https://ibb.co/CttW5wv

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 20:50, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:09:17 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 19:53, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:08:26 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

He's seen it on TV.

Yes, best if we keep it to that shall we.

Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.

Unsurprisingly, my real world seem to be more real than yours, troll.

The very definition of delusional.

Talking of definitions, here is the definition of cowardice and denial
(yours).

https://ibb.co/CttW5wv

Cowardice and denial of what?

That pigs have lower levels of stress in commercial farms as indicated
by their weight gain?

On 25/04/2021 18:46, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:16:53 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

You really are another idiot aren't you, unless you actually think no
lawyer has ever done a behind the scenes deal with another ... or a
fighter has never thrown the game?

Again having been caught out making things up, you turn to abuse and
deflection.

Bwhahahaha. Hey, you are serious aren't you, so let me laugh in your
face even louder BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sounds like a defensive nervous laughter.

I guess the next thing you will try to deny is that there is such a
thing as a bent Copper, Judge or MP?

So you *are* an expert on legal matters, then.

Don't have to be to be aware of such things, you just don't need to be
a stupid blinkered troll.

As above.

Agreed, you are just a stupid troll.

You agree you're a blinkered troll? Another item to add to your list.

Actually it's worse, being a left brainer you will make up whatever
best fits your understanding of the world and stay with it as you dig
your hole to the centre of the earth.

So, you got caught out again. Tough luck,

Bwhahaha ... no, please keep this up, it's hilarious!

Sounds like a defensive nervous laughter.

On 25/04/2021 18:58, T i m wrote:
On 25 Apr 2021 17:26:20 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 18:04:34 BST, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the spelling
then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

In what way is your comment in any way at all relevant to what Spike said?
What he said was "Change the dictionary", which is correct. IOW, tell it to
use the British English one instead of the US English one.

Oh FFS, you left brainers!

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

So, I was 'way ahead' of Spike and you from a simple comprehension POV
as well. ;-(

If you were well ahead of us you would already have the file:
agentenu-spelleng200-100.exe

which has your desired dictionary. However the world ahas moved forward
and I feel the need to remind you Forte Agent was released in 2004:
https://www.forteinc.com/release/

Your posts are becoming hilarious.

And this is part of the problem for left brainers, they don't think
(or even consider) that anyone else might actually know anything, or
consider any 'history' when a troll offers help?

It's like dealing with someone suffering with a bi-polar disorder,
they blow hot and cold and *they* don't realise when they are what.

It can be similar after they have had a drink etc.

This all sounds like mindless twaddlle to hide being a Luddite. Now,
when was Forte Agent 2.0 released?

On 25 Apr 2021 19:46:14 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

This was the crucial item of information that you withheld.

Ah, another one playing the 'oh you trapped me' card. Grow up FFS.

You dug the hole yourself and fell right into it, your fault.

We're supposed to
be able to intuit, are we, that you are using obsolete software with Usenet?

How difficult is it to check the message headers if you were actually
interested?

How about *asking* me if I had the latest dictionary file and that the
right one was enabled if you really wanted to help?

I have mentioned many a time (inc recently in a tread about Forte
Agent) stating exactly what version I was using.

It seems I have to do research to answer a near unanswerable question
but you don't for one that's right in your face.

I didn't ask for help on the FA dictionary.

You know I worked in IT for most of my life and if you don't (by now),
I'd ask the doctor for something to try to save what's left of your
memory.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/04/2021 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2021 18:58, T i m wrote:
On 25 Apr 2021 17:26:20 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 18:04:34 BST, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

Â* I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
Â* changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the
spelling
Â* then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

In what way is your comment in any way at all relevant to what Spike
said?
What he said was "Change the dictionary", which is correct. IOW, tell
it to
use the British English one instead of the US English one.

Oh FFS, you left brainers!

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

So, I was 'way ahead' of Spike and you from a simple comprehension POV
as well. ;-(

If you were well ahead of us you would already have the file:
Â* agentenu-spelleng200-100.exe

which has your desired dictionary. However the world ahas moved forward
and I feel the need to remind you Forte Agent was released in 2004:
Â* https://www.forteinc.com/release/

Your posts are becoming hilarious.

More embarrassing than hilarious.


And this is part of the problem for left brainers, they don't think
(or even consider) that anyone else might actually know anything, or
consider any 'history' when a troll offers help?

It's like dealing with someone suffering with a bi-polar disorder,
they blow hot and cold and *they* don't realise when they are what.

It can be similar after they have had a drink etc.

This all sounds like mindless twaddlle to hide being a Luddite. Now,
when was Forte Agent 2.0 released?

On 25/04/2021 17:46, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

You really are another idiot aren't you, unless you actually think no
lawyer has ever done a behind the scenes deal with another ... or a
fighter has never thrown the game?

Again having been caught out making things up, you turn to abuse and
deflection.

Bwhahahaha. Hey, you are serious aren't you, so let me laugh in your
face even louder BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Shouting down someone is a sign of a lost argument.

a stupid blinkered troll.

Agreed, you are just a stupid troll.

Having been caught out making things up, you turn to abuse and deflection.

--
Spike

On 25/04/2021 23:18, T i m wrote:

How about *asking* me if I had the latest dictionary file and that the
right one was enabled if you really wanted to help?

Not necessary, because your posts made it clear that you were using the
wrong dictionary.

I have mentioned many a time (inc recently in a tread about Forte
Agent) stating exactly what version I was using.

But not which dictionary you were using.

Get a more appropriate newsreader...

--
Spike

On 26 Apr 2021 09:07:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Why would I

pay?

attention to a thread about software that I don't have and which,
indeed, I've never heard of.

Then why did you think you could help me on the same?

Or keep track of what newreader software someone
uses -

'Keep track' ... ?

Messages Show headers
You: User-Agent: Usenapp/1.07.1/l for MacOS - Full License.
Me: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652

Yeah, very difficult that.

I've got better things to do.

Bwhaha! So, it was easier to try to 'help' me than do nothing?

One might also expect that if someone is
excusing themself because their software doesn't have an available UK English
dictionary, they'd say so.

One might have a reasonable understanding of someone technical skills
over (what 10+ years, inc the Mac group?) and think to ask the
question (if seriously *just* wanting to 'help)?

No, nice back pedaling mate but no cigar.

Seriously Tim, why don't you just give up with the trying to get one
over on me and just try to be 'straight' (and I'll do the same). This
place is getting toxic enough with all the trolls and 'drive by' stone
throwers. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 23:03:28 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 20:50, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:09:17 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 19:53, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:08:26 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

He's seen it on TV.

Yes, best if we keep it to that shall we.

Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.

Unsurprisingly, my real world seem to be more real than yours, troll.

The very definition of delusional.

Talking of definitions, here is the definition of cowardice and denial
(yours).

https://ibb.co/CttW5wv

Cowardice and denial of what?

The facts, as usual with you.

That pigs have lower levels of stress in commercial farms as indicated
by their weight gain?

Bwhahaha. Yeah, after they have had their tails cut off, their teeth
cut off and the sows denied access to and to be able to get away from
her piglets and then fed high protein food before being gassed when
very young, just for you to enjoy something you could easily live
without.

https://ibb.co/BnVvVMp

That message wouldn't impact you because you believe that animals
don't suffer, or that it's acceptable to just make them suffer less
and you have the god-like-right to kill them, just because you like
the taste.

You can do that (or because you know it's wrong, couldn't do it
yourself but pay someone else to do it (and often suffer) for you)
because you aren't equipped with the tools (empathy, compassion,
benevolence, sense) to do any different.

You won't even watch a *Youtube video* of what goes on in every
abattoir in the UK, that's how much of a coward in denial you are.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/04/2021 07:27, Richard wrote:
On 25/04/2021 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2021 18:58, T i m wrote:
On 25 Apr 2021 17:26:20 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 18:04:34 BST, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

Â* I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
Â* changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the
spelling
Â* then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

In what way is your comment in any way at all relevant to what Spike
said?
What he said was "Change the dictionary", which is correct. IOW,
tell it to
use the British English one instead of the US English one.

Oh FFS, you left brainers!

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

So, I was 'way ahead' of Spike and you from a simple comprehension POV
as well. ;-(

If you were well ahead of us you would already have the file:
Â*Â* agentenu-spelleng200-100.exe

which has your desired dictionary. However the world ahas moved
forward and I feel the need to remind you Forte Agent was released in
2004:
Â*Â* https://www.forteinc.com/release/

Your posts are becoming hilarious.

More embarrassing than hilarious.

I do wonder if his wife and step-daughter read his posts.

And this is part of the problem for left brainers, they don't think
(or even consider) that anyone else might actually know anything, or
consider any 'history' when a troll offers help?

It's like dealing with someone suffering with a bi-polar disorder,
they blow hot and cold and *they* don't realise when they are what.

It can be similar after they have had a drink etc.

This all sounds like mindless twaddlle to hide being a Luddite. Now,
when was Forte Agent 2.0 released?

On 25/04/2021 18:17, Tim Streater wrote:
Or, as I found at work, to understand that a word processor is not
a ****ing typewriter, so you don't need to press Return 20 times at the end of
a document.

Err, did you need to do that with a tripewriter ?.

Wasn't there a platen release lever so that you can rip out the
document with a flourish ?. Or just wind the knob on the end of
the platen ?.
I've never used an electric tripewriter like those IBM ones,
but wouldn't they have had a 'paper eject button'.

On 26/04/2021 12:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/04/2021 07:27, Richard wrote:
On 25/04/2021 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2021 18:58, T i m wrote:
On 25 Apr 2021 17:26:20 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2021 at 18:04:34 BST, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:17:46 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:

Â* I had originally written councillor but the spellchecker on Agent
Â* changed it, probably the American spelling? So, I checked the
spelling
Â* then added the correct one to the dictionary.

All together now: "Change the dictionary!".

Unfortunately, and as *always*, I'm one step ahead of you left
brainer, in fact I've been ahead of you on that one for many many
years.

So, I just have to update it as I go along.

In what way is your comment in any way at all relevant to what
Spike said?
What he said was "Change the dictionary", which is correct. IOW,
tell it to
use the British English one instead of the US English one.

Oh FFS, you left brainers!

I have been using 'English (International)' dictionary for years and
haven't found any alternatives or upgrades for this version (2.0) of
FA.

So, I was 'way ahead' of Spike and you from a simple comprehension POV
as well. ;-(

If you were well ahead of us you would already have the file:
Â*Â* agentenu-spelleng200-100.exe

which has your desired dictionary. However the world ahas moved
forward and I feel the need to remind you Forte Agent was released in
2004:
Â*Â* https://www.forteinc.com/release/

Your posts are becoming hilarious.

More embarrassing than hilarious.

I do wonder if his wife and step-daughter read his posts.

I get the feeling that they have told him to stop whining, so he does it
here.
BICBW.

On 25/04/2021 19:08, Richard wrote:
On 25/04/2021 16:17, Spike wrote:

IOW, you made it up.

He's seen it on TV.
Unfortunately, in his world fantasy and reality are the same.


Like those videos that he and all the other militant vegan nutters
try to force on other people