In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Just installed a Freeview box for
her and got a chance to play with it. Not nearly as good as off air.

Strange. I've just given in and bought a Daewoo Freeview STB for 39
quid so I have something to watch in the winter evenings. The picture
quality is astounding and the sound is so much better (even I can tell
the difference, and I wear a hearing aid.

You snipped the bit that mattered. I was comparing FreeView to cable -
hence the bit about 'off air'.

The TV has NICAM sound.)

There shouldn't be any audible difference. Nor between it and FM sound
either - apart from being in stereo.

Could be the levels are different, which fools many.

Channel 5 is now watchable (no snow, and subtitles now work), and the
extra TV/radio channels are a bonus. There's no way I would put money
into Murdoch's pocket for another 200 channels of the absolute ****e
they show on Sky.

The Grauniad reported this week that 760,000 Freeview boxes have been
sold.

Suppose their modulators are cheap and cheerful too.

Try the SCART output. At first I was disappointed with the picture
quality from the STB, but the manual suggested trying the other SCART
input on your TV if it had two, which mine has (I think it's composite
video/YUV vs. RGB input.) The difference was like night and day.

I meant the modulators the cable boys use.

You're right that RGB makes a great difference off Freeview, though. My
main complaint with it is the lack of colours compared to analogue - flesh
tones often look rather bland, with less detail.

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

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:22:43 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't like them because they are based on fails facts, something that
you
aptly demonstrated and then argued when you where put right.

Mmmm.......

Yes, you were put right.

And your real life knowledge of the NHS
seems equally lacking too.

I've seen quite enough of the way it operates (or rather doesn't) to
last a lifetime, thanks. Wherever possible, I shop elsewhere.


Well we will have to agree to disagree, seeing that your only contact
with
the NHS has been through the front door IIRC.

Actually not, but that is the most important view together with that
of the clinical staff. Both are poor.

Stop making things up.

If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric locomotives
were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the
new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not just
on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.

This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago. You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.

Total tripe. A good system is a good system at any time in history.

What actually matters is what the user gets. For the most part,
what I get today when I use a train is a great deal better than it was
prior to privatisation although frankly it still has a long way to go
and would get there faster if the state simply provided the funding
that was committed and reneged upon.


Why should public money be given to private business but not to a state
one,
hypocrisy to say the least...

Not at all.

It is.

You're typical of today's 8th floor industry
know-all's, as long as you can babble some
financial techno-speak' you think you can impress and prove
your flawed point.

He knows sweet FA of economics.

I don't have a need to impress
anybody or to prove any points.

You can't prove poinst, that is the point.

Well, you couldn't, even if you wanted to !

Sigh......

The UK has had 10 years of private TOC's and Railtrack, the railways are
in
a worse state now than the last days of under funded BR, trains can't be
used [1], maintenance has been so lacking across the network that at
least
two fatal derailments are directly attributable to it and has had to have
HMG intervene and one fatal crash due to penny pinching in signalling and
driver training.

One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.

No. It was because it was privately owned. No other reason.

[1] new trains that draw more power
than could be supplied meaning HMG had
to fund the rebuilding of the power supply system.

Since the government has effectively
assumed responsibility for the
infrastructure, that would seem reasonable.

The they should claw back money from the sharks.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

IMO they were right. However, they did not have the courage to do the
job properly. The railways should be treated as any other transport
business. I don't hear too many moans about Easyjet and Ryanair,

Your right, they didn't do it correctly (assuming privatisation was correct,
which I don't), they were told that the only way any sense could be made out
of it was to sell off the BR regions, the result would have been something
like the 'Big Four' prior to nationalisation with each new company being
responsible for all aspects (track, freight, passenger services etc.) - this
was turned down as it would have brought in less money than splitting the
system into many different businesses.


What tripe. The airways are vast. railways need well, er, er, rail
lines.
That all interconnect. A monopoly. Best kept that way and run properly


IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

IMO they were right. However, they did not have the courage to do the
job properly. The railways should be treated as any other transport
business. I don't hear too many moans about Easyjet and Ryanair,

Your right, they didn't do it correctly (assuming privatisation was
correct,
which I don't), they were told that the only way any sense could be made
out
of it was to sell off the BR regions, the result would have been something
like the 'Big Four' prior to nationalisation with each new company being
responsible for all aspects (track, freight, passenger services etc.) -
this
was turned down as it would have brought in less money than splitting the
system into many different businesses.


What tripe. The airways are vast. railways need well, er, er, rail
lines.
That all interconnect. A monopoly. Best kept that way and run properly


IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

They use aeroplanes that fly. They don't use rails.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:49:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:





Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e. purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to drugs
or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot
and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the
whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of the
NHS.


That's illogical.

If staff are enticed into the private sector it will be because of
better pay and working conditions.

Yes, the state can't fund a living wage to the NHS staff, because people
like you object to paying into a far taxation system....

No I don't, for the Nth time. I said that I don't mind paying a
fair chunk of tax based on earnings into a state healthcare fund.

All that I want is to be able to be given the same funding back as
everybody else, but to spend or supplement it where I choose.
Additionally, I don't want to be penalised through additional taxation
on insurance premiums for exercising choice

We have had fifty years of throwing increasing amounts of money into a
broken system, and it is time to stop and reassess it.


Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

We are talking about highly skilled staff, not OAP bum wipers, to put it
bluntly.

I am sure that they are highly skilled in their sector just as people
in other sectors are skilled in theirs.

Sorry, but this does not justify creating a special case.





Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

Because peoples health is affected if we don't.

That's simply not true. There is no basis in the assumption that the
state has to *deliver* the healthcare by running hospitals and all the
other paraphernalia. It simply needs to deliver the funding.


But as long as you're OK you
don't seem to care about those less fortunate than your self....


Actually I do, and this is the whole point. I would like to see a far
better arrangement than we have today and freedom of choice without
penalty. The present system is failing miserably, is the subject of
ever increasing funding with marginal return.




This is one of the main points. If an organisation is so broken that
it's necessary to protect it by limiting its competition in various
ways then something is very wrong.


It's not broken, people are trying to break it for personal gain but it's
not broken at all, just under funded.

If it isn't broken, why are there a raft of measures to discourage
people from shopping elsewhere?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:12:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago. You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.

Total tripe. A good system is a good system at any time in history.

Until things move on, as they always do.






One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.

No. It was because it was privately owned. No other reason.

So political spite that HMG reneged on the agreed funding.......

I always suspected that....




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:49:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:





Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e.
purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to
drugs
or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot
and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the
private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the
whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of
the
NHS.


That's illogical.

If staff are enticed into the private sector it will be because of
better pay and working conditions.

Yes, the state can't fund a living wage to the NHS staff, because people
like you object to paying into a far taxation system....

No I don't, for the Nth time.

You do.

I said that I don't mind paying a
fair chunk of tax based on earnings
into a state healthcare fund.

LVT would not be based on your earnings.

All that I want is to be able to be
given the same funding back as
everybody else, but to spend or
supplement it where I choose.
Additionally, I don't want to be
penalised through additional taxation
on insurance premiums for exercising
choice

LVT again. That is what you need.

We have had fifty years of throwing
increasing amounts of money into a
broken system, and it is time to stop
and reassess it.

LVT will put it right.

Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

We are talking about highly skilled staff, not OAP bum wipers, to put it
bluntly.

I am sure that they are highly skilled in their sector just as people
in other sectors are skilled in theirs.

Sorry, but this does not justify creating a special case.

Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

Because peoples health is affected if we don't.

That's simply not true.

It is true.

There is no basis in the assumption that the
state has to *deliver* the healthcare by
running hospitals and all the
other paraphernalia. It simply needs to
deliver the funding.

So sharks can take the funding.

But as long as you're OK you
don't seem to care about those
less fortunate than your self....

That is true.

Actually I do,

You don't.

and this is the whole point. I would like to see a far
better arrangement than we have today and freedom of choice without
penalty. The present system is failing miserably, is the subject of
ever increasing funding with marginal return.

LVT again...the solution.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:12:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago. You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.

Total tripe. A good system is a good system at any time in history.

Until things move on, as they always do.

Principles stay the same. The most successful business people in the world
are? Not the Jews.........but the Quakers. Cadbury's, Huntley & Palmers,
Honeywell, Clark's Shoes, etc. Companies set up in the 1800s and still
major concerns today. The Quaker principles they were laid down on are
still sound today. When they move away from the base principles they get
into trouble.

LVT is a sound principle and will always work: spread the proceeds of
production, eliminate poverty. Make the vast majority of the population
better off, etc, etc.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:06:40 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:25:38 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:01:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Public transport is an essential service

It's not *essential* at all. There are plenty of ways to get from A
to B, assuming it's necessary to do so at all.

Wrong I'm afraid. Witness the added congestion when there are
train/tube strikes. Considering a lot of people stay at home or use
buses, the long term absence of public transport would be a lot worse.

You have to look at the bigger picture than the assumption that public
transport is needed.

Unfortunately, the basic assumption of the anti-car pro public
transport lobby is the assumption that mass movement of people is
required. This is only because businesses base themselves in large
city centres and pull in the supporting cast of service industries as
well.

I'm by no means anti car, I would have problem if I was (!), but that
doesn't stop me seeming the need for an integrated public transport system
and one that IMO could only be delivered by it being both publicly funded
and controlled.

Oh good grief. That's simply a pipe/wet dream.

The Dutch have tried this kind of game with things like train taxis.
THe idea is that you buy a taxi ride as an add on to the train fare at
a lower cost.
Then when you arrive at the destination you get crammed in to a car
with goodness knows who and driven around to the destination of each,
order decided by the driver.

I went in one of these once and ended up 45 minutes late for a
meeting, when had I gone by individual transport it would have taken 5
minutes and I would have been early.

These grand ideas sound all very fine in theory but fail to account
for people's time.





That notion is flawed, because there isn't a need for businesses to be
in city centres, for many there isn't a need to have fixed working
times and for many there isn't a need to congregate at a central
premises at all. There are increasing numbers of businesses that
have moved on from these ideas with employees working from home or
smaller regional locations.


Working from home is a valid argument, but that is dependent on telecoms
etc. The issue of regional locations is less so, people would still need to
gat to the location, that means travelling, that means congestion - and
flexi-time (or what ever) doesn't work for all businesses.

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

Increasingly businesses are using combinations of office space and
home working. There are some for which this won't work as you say,
but moving businesses out of the large cities, even if only a
proportion, would reduce the need for public transport and provide a
better match between work patterns and travel.





OK it may possible for you to drive, and it may be possible for you to
schedule travel outside the rush hour, but that does not apply for
everyone else.

This demonstrates it is not essential for *you*, but is essential for
society as a whole, on which you rely.

THat's my question. Is it? The conventional approach is to assume
that businesses want to be in city centres and that therefore
transport provision on a grand scale must be made.

If it is made attractive for businesses to locate away from city
centres, then most of the mass transport need goes away.

Assuming that all can and wish to drive, again you need to step out of your
Utopia and view the real world.


I didn't say that all mass transport can go away, simply that the
forms and needs of transport would change for the better.

Clearly not all the cases can be covered, but around 75-80% of
households now own at least one car.

So the provisioning of public transport should look at the needs of
the remaining 20% and not try to force the majority to use something
that does not meet their needs.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

Most businesses can't be run from very small British homes. There is no
space.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

I hope the CPS don't waste there time doing that either, could be why there
are so many fathers in court though, I think you mean the CSA.....

;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they

could

pay, they see the point.

Good one IMM....

Given the size of the population of poisonous snakes indigenous in this
country, that should ram home the point with the characteristic thrust
of most of your arguments.



Replace snake with RTA....

Replace RTA with waiting for a heart operation in the NHS...

(500 a year die from that alone - Hansard 7 May 2003 : Column 726)...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

You snipped the bit that mattered. I was comparing FreeView to cable -
hence the bit about 'off air'.

Sorry, it was not deliberate. I missed that.

You're right that RGB makes a great difference off Freeview, though. My
main complaint with it is the lack of colours compared to analogue - flesh
tones often look rather bland, with less detail.

Yes, I agree. I find colours are oversaturated too, preferring a
picture with the colour control turned down. The improvement in overall
picture quality makes up for it though.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:08:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

Most businesses can't be run from very small British homes. There is no
space.


Obviously that depends on the nature of the business and the home.

An individual contributor or intellectual property business usually
can, but I doubt whether you would be able to run an oil refinery on
your dining room table in Milton Keynes.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:08:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

Most businesses can't be run from very small British homes. There is no
space.

Obviously that depends on the
nature of the business and the home.

Most people do not have a spare room large enough to use as an office.

An individual contributor or intellectual property business usually
can, but I doubt whether you would be able to run an oil refinery on
your dining room table in Milton Keynes.

As I do not live in the good city of Milton Keynes that would very difficult
to do; I just love their ropad system,

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on
the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they

could

pay, they see the point.

Good one IMM....

Given the size of the population of poisonous snakes indigenous in this
country, that should ram home the point with the characteristic thrust
of most of your arguments.



Replace snake with RTA....

Replace RTA with waiting for a heart operation in the NHS...

(500 a year die from that alone - Hansard 7 May 2003 : Column 726)...


At least they knew what they were dieing of, not just hoping that the local
'Old Maids remedy' will work, 'cos that's all they could afford....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:49:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:





Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e.
purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to
drugs
or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot
and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the
private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the
whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of
the
NHS.


That's illogical.

If staff are enticed into the private sector it will be because of
better pay and working conditions.

Yes, the state can't fund a living wage to the NHS staff, because people
like you object to paying into a far taxation system....

No I don't, for the Nth time. I said that I don't mind paying a
fair chunk of tax based on earnings into a state healthcare fund.

You say that but then want tax cuts, what you are really saying is that you
want to pay what *you* think is a correct level of tax - not the required
level of tax if society is going to take care of it follow citizens.


All that I want is to be able to be given the same funding back as
everybody else, but to spend or supplement it where I choose.
Additionally, I don't want to be penalised through additional taxation
on insurance premiums for exercising choice

But that is your choice, with a correctly funded and run NHS there would be
little need for private medical insurance (you'll get treated by your need,
not by your wealth or that of your employer), if you really want to have an
appointment / treatment when you want it than I see no reason why you
shouldn't have to pay extra and the true cost of that service (such as the
cost of training within the private sector rather than sponging off the NHS
for training).


We have had fifty years of throwing increasing amounts of money into a
broken system, and it is time to stop and reassess it.

Couldn't agree more, but all the time management and accountants are
creaming it I doubt it will happen - other than to scrap the NHS and go over
to a profit based health care service...



Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

We are talking about highly skilled staff, not OAP bum wipers, to put it
bluntly.

I am sure that they are highly skilled in their sector just as people
in other sectors are skilled in theirs.

Sorry, but this does not justify creating a special case.


Then you know as little about the NHS as you know about the railways,
nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that an OAP bum wiper is on a level
with ICU staff ?!





Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

Because peoples health is affected if we don't.

That's simply not true. There is no basis in the assumption that the
state has to *deliver* the healthcare by running hospitals and all the
other paraphernalia. It simply needs to deliver the funding.


Oh right, so as long as the state is funding private profit that is good,
but if it's funding a public service that bad....


But as long as you're OK you
don't seem to care about those less fortunate than your self....


Actually I do, and this is the whole point. I would like to see a far
better arrangement than we have today and freedom of choice without
penalty. The present system is failing miserably, is the subject of
ever increasing funding with marginal return.


So you don't care, you only care about yourself and if you can make money
out of health care, otherwise you would be arguing for a tax increase to
fund real free at the point of use health care.

QED.




This is one of the main points. If an organisation is so broken that
it's necessary to protect it by limiting its competition in various
ways then something is very wrong.


It's not broken, people are trying to break it for personal gain but it's
not broken at all, just under funded.

If it isn't broken, why are there a raft of measures to discourage

The problem is that to much money is being spent in back room staff and not
in front line care.

people from shopping elsewhere?


There isn't. Unless you object the personal choices that are given to you...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:06:40 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:25:38 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:01:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Public transport is an essential service

It's not *essential* at all. There are plenty of ways to get from A
to B, assuming it's necessary to do so at all.

Wrong I'm afraid. Witness the added congestion when there are
train/tube strikes. Considering a lot of people stay at home or use
buses, the long term absence of public transport would be a lot worse.

You have to look at the bigger picture than the assumption that public
transport is needed.

Unfortunately, the basic assumption of the anti-car pro public
transport lobby is the assumption that mass movement of people is
required. This is only because businesses base themselves in large
city centres and pull in the supporting cast of service industries as
well.

I'm by no means anti car, I would have problem if I was (!), but that
doesn't stop me seeming the need for an integrated public transport
system
and one that IMO could only be delivered by it being both publicly funded
and controlled.

Oh good grief. That's simply a pipe/wet dream.

The Dutch have tried this kind of game with things like train taxis.
THe idea is that you buy a taxi ride as an add on to the train fare at
a lower cost.
Then when you arrive at the destination you get crammed in to a car
with goodness knows who and driven around to the destination of each,
order decided by the driver.

I went in one of these once and ended up 45 minutes late for a
meeting, when had I gone by individual transport it would have taken 5
minutes and I would have been early.

These grand ideas sound all very fine in theory but fail to account
for people's time.


So why didn't you either pay for your own taxi or ride the bus that was
waiting for the train ?....





That notion is flawed, because there isn't a need for businesses to be
in city centres, for many there isn't a need to have fixed working
times and for many there isn't a need to congregate at a central
premises at all. There are increasing numbers of businesses that
have moved on from these ideas with employees working from home or
smaller regional locations.


Working from home is a valid argument, but that is dependent on telecoms
etc. The issue of regional locations is less so, people would still need
to
gat to the location, that means travelling, that means congestion - and
flexi-time (or what ever) doesn't work for all businesses.

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

As long as you have both space and can affort the cost of setting up a SOHO.
Or are you suggesting that the state funds private bussiness to encourage
home working ?...


Increasingly businesses are using combinations of office space and
home working. There are some for which this won't work as you say,
but moving businesses out of the large cities, even if only a
proportion, would reduce the need for public transport and provide a
better match between work patterns and travel.


How does moving a business reduce the need for transport, people still need
to travel to where ever and in some cases moving away from a location can
been you either chuck trained staff out of jobs or you increase the amount
of commuting.





OK it may possible for you to drive, and it may be possible for you to
schedule travel outside the rush hour, but that does not apply for
everyone else.

This demonstrates it is not essential for *you*, but is essential for
society as a whole, on which you rely.

THat's my question. Is it? The conventional approach is to assume
that businesses want to be in city centres and that therefore
transport provision on a grand scale must be made.

If it is made attractive for businesses to locate away from city
centres, then most of the mass transport need goes away.

Assuming that all can and wish to drive, again you need to step out of
your
Utopia and view the real world.


I didn't say that all mass transport can go away, simply that the
forms and needs of transport would change for the better.

People still need to travel, if they can't travel by PT then they are going
to use their own, that is unsustainable.


Clearly not all the cases can be covered, but around 75-80% of
households now own at least one car.

And with two people working, one gets to work the can't...


So the provisioning of public transport should look at the needs of
the remaining 20% and not try to force the majority to use something
that does not meet their needs.


And just how are you going to accommodate that 80 percent on the roads, the
road system can't cope now ? Oh, I know, private toll roads....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

As I do not live in the good city of Milton Keynes that would very
difficult
to do; I just love their ropad system,


About the only person who does !

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:15:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip
Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html


One would need to read carefully and not quote selectively as you did.

He almost has some good ideas until he becomes confused about
taxation.


IYHO, of course....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:22:43 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip


If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric locomotives
were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the
new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not just
on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.

This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago.

Of course it's not, but then it does rather place your arguments into the
straw man category...

The point is, it was done successfully once and there is no reason other
than ideology why it couldn't be done again...

You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.


The problem is not being state owned or funded but the level of funding.




What actually matters is what the user gets. For the most part,
what I get today when I use a train is a great deal better than it was
prior to privatisation although frankly it still has a long way to go
and would get there faster if the state simply provided the funding
that was committed and reneged upon.


Why should public money be given to private business but not to a state
one,
hypocrisy to say the least...

Not at all. Why shouldn't it be? I see no hypocrisy at all, and
actually better management of my taxes.


That is plain hypocrisy and dog-minded bull - state bad, private ownership
good.

snip

The UK has had 10 years of private TOC's and Railtrack, the railways are
in
a worse state now than the last days of under funded BR, trains can't be
used [1], maintenance has been so lacking across the network that at
least
two fatal derailments are directly attributable to it and has had to have
HMG intervene and one fatal crash due to penny pinching in signalling and
driver training.

One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.


You are nothing but a carpet bager if you think it bad for state owned
serviced to be funded but it's OK for private companies to have such
public funding.




[1] new trains that draw more power than could be supplied meaning HMG
had
to fund the rebuilding of the power supply system.

Since the government has effectively assumed responsibility for the
infrastructure, that would seem reasonable.


But the point is, they shouldn't have ordered such trains, or at least
mentioned the problem and sorted the funding to update the supply, not cry
wolf after delivery and expect a state hand out to cure there balls up. oh,
and BTW IIRC this was before the state had to sort out the Failtrack mess.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

They use aeroplanes that fly. They don't use rails.


But they do use 'flight paths', and you can only have so many aircraft in
any section at a time, it's not an unlimited free for all up there - Thank
Gawd !

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

As I do not live in the good city of Milton Keynes that would very
difficult
to do; I just love their road system,


About the only person who does !

I know nowhere else in the UK where you can legally drive just about
anywhere at 60 or 70mph around a city. Wizzzo!

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:15:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip
Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html


One would need to read carefully and not quote selectively as you did.

He almost has some good ideas until he becomes confused about
taxation.


IYHO, of course....

Hisd opinion is not honest.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

They use aeroplanes that fly. They don't use rails.


But they do use 'flight paths', and you can only have so many aircraft in
any section at a time, it's not an unlimited free for all up there - Thank
Gawd !

Not the same as all rains running down one track. Not the same.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:25:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



Yes, the state can't fund a living wage to the NHS staff, because people
like you object to paying into a far taxation system....

No I don't, for the Nth time. I said that I don't mind paying a
fair chunk of tax based on earnings into a state healthcare fund.

You say that but then want tax cuts, what you are really saying is that you
want to pay what *you* think is a correct level of tax - not the required
level of tax if society is going to take care of it follow citizens.

The arithmetic is fairly simple.

If one removes the NHS as an oversized delivery vehicle with top heavy
bureaucracy and inefficiencies and keeps a simple funding operation
only (remember I said everybody receives the same funding), then the
costs of the whole thing to the tax payer are reduced anyway.

However, I didn't even suggest a reduction in tax contribution to
healthcare provisioning. It could be kept the same and far more cost
effectiveness achieved by the government being out of the delivery
business.



All that I want is to be able to be given the same funding back as
everybody else, but to spend or supplement it where I choose.
Additionally, I don't want to be penalised through additional taxation
on insurance premiums for exercising choice

But that is your choice, with a correctly funded and run NHS there would be
little need for private medical insurance (you'll get treated by your need,
not by your wealth or that of your employer), if you really want to have an
appointment / treatment when you want it than I see no reason why you
shouldn't have to pay extra and the true cost of that service (such as the
cost of training within the private sector rather than sponging off the NHS
for training).


You're missing the point. First of all there is no way to
efficiently fund and operate a healthcare management and delivery
system on the scale of the NHS. It needs to be scaled down or
closed down and replaced with a funding arrangement only.

Even with some form of government operated system, there is no way
that it can be funded to the level required to meet all needs and
requirements.

In terms of "need", who defines that? At present it is done by way
of national policies handled by NICE etc. and by various faceless
individuals in committees who use criteria such as value to society to
determine priorities.
I would define "need" more widely to also include availability and
timing of treatments to fit with other things that I have or want to
do.

I don't have a problem with paying extra to have an appointment
when/where I want it. However, I do think that the amount that would
have been costed for this in the NHS should be provided to offset the
cost.

Your argument about training is illogical. There is no reason at all
why people trained in the public sector should not move at will to the
private sector. In all other fields this is way things work.



We have had fifty years of throwing increasing amounts of money into a
broken system, and it is time to stop and reassess it.

Couldn't agree more, but all the time management and accountants are
creaming it I doubt it will happen - other than to scrap the NHS and go over
to a profit based health care service...

That would be a far better idea.





Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

We are talking about highly skilled staff, not OAP bum wipers, to put it
bluntly.

I am sure that they are highly skilled in their sector just as people
in other sectors are skilled in theirs.

Sorry, but this does not justify creating a special case.


Then you know as little about the NHS as you know about the railways,
nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that an OAP bum wiper is on a level
with ICU staff ?!

Of course not, but there is no special case here. I haven't suggested
that an ICU person is on a level of training with an OAP bum wiper as
you put it. I was comparing what you are suggesting for healthcare
with what happens elsewhere.

If somebody goes to university, the government subsidises the cost,
yet there is no requirement for the graduate to work for the
government for a period of time. Arguably he does anyway by virtue
of paying taxes.

Hospitals, among their many roles are teaching environments and indeed
many are attached to universities anyway. I see no reason why they
should be protected in some way. Some people will stay, others will
want to move to the private sector because they prefer it. There's no
difference in that principle for whether they are a doctor of medicine
or a lawyer.







Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

Because peoples health is affected if we don't.

That's simply not true. There is no basis in the assumption that the
state has to *deliver* the healthcare by running hospitals and all the
other paraphernalia. It simply needs to deliver the funding.


Oh right, so as long as the state is funding private profit that is good,
but if it's funding a public service that bad....


There is nothing wrong with the state funding private companies to
provide delivery of services. The profit motive leads to greater
efficiencies, accountability and better services.




But as long as you're OK you
don't seem to care about those less fortunate than your self....


Actually I do, and this is the whole point. I would like to see a far
better arrangement than we have today and freedom of choice without
penalty. The present system is failing miserably, is the subject of
ever increasing funding with marginal return.


So you don't care, you only care about yourself and if you can make money
out of health care, otherwise you would be arguing for a tax increase to
fund real free at the point of use health care.

That's your conclusion based on your left wing prejudices that
healthcare has to be government funded, provided and ring fenced from
any possible competition.

It is neither what I said nor implied.




This is one of the main points. If an organisation is so broken that
it's necessary to protect it by limiting its competition in various
ways then something is very wrong.


It's not broken, people are trying to break it for personal gain but it's
not broken at all, just under funded.

If it isn't broken, why are there a raft of measures to discourage

The problem is that to much money is being spent in back room staff and not
in front line care.

Exactly, which is why it would be better to shut the whole thing down
and to start again with government providing funding only.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:57:56 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:22:43 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip


If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric locomotives
were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the
new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not just
on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.

This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago.

Of course it's not, but then it does rather place your arguments into the
straw man category...

The point is, it was done successfully once and there is no reason other
than ideology why it couldn't be done again...

The world has moved on from the kind of ideology that you hanker
after. Get over it.



You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.


The problem is not being state owned or funded but the level of funding.

If you look at any economy where the state has or has had a major
involvement in ownership and running of a large part, it has failed
miserably or continues to fail miserably.

You only have to look at the former Warsaw Pact countries to see the
enormous improvements in quality of life as inward investment picks up
following the demise of the state controlling everything.


....

Not at all. Why shouldn't it be? I see no hypocrisy at all, and
actually better management of my taxes.


That is plain hypocrisy and dog-minded bull - state bad, private ownership
good.

I think that you have muddled thinking here. There is no logical
reason at all why the state should not purchase services from
organisations outside its direct ownership.




One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.


You are nothing but a carpet bager if you think it bad for state owned
serviced to be funded but it's OK for private companies to have such
public funding.


Oh please.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:41:31 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The Dutch have tried this kind of game with things like train taxis.
THe idea is that you buy a taxi ride as an add on to the train fare at
a lower cost.
Then when you arrive at the destination you get crammed in to a car
with goodness knows who and driven around to the destination of each,
order decided by the driver.

I went in one of these once and ended up 45 minutes late for a
meeting, when had I gone by individual transport it would have taken 5
minutes and I would have been early.

These grand ideas sound all very fine in theory but fail to account
for people's time.


So why didn't you either pay for your own taxi or ride the bus that was
waiting for the train ?....


This so called service was advertised as being a great and efficient
deal at getting to the destination. and there was a payment involved
along with the train ticket. The poster even waffled about
"integrated transport". It's a complete wank.
Buses were not an option because the routes were unclear in terms of
the address as well as how long it would take.
On the return trip I took a taxi.
Ever since, I rented a car.




Working from home is a valid argument, but that is dependent on telecoms
etc. The issue of regional locations is less so, people would still need
to
gat to the location, that means travelling, that means congestion - and
flexi-time (or what ever) doesn't work for all businesses.

There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to
work or run a business from home.

As long as you have both space and can affort the cost of setting up a SOHO.
Or are you suggesting that the state funds private bussiness to encourage
home working ?...

That would be a good idea, or even better, individual tax concessions
for doing so.





Increasingly businesses are using combinations of office space and
home working. There are some for which this won't work as you say,
but moving businesses out of the large cities, even if only a
proportion, would reduce the need for public transport and provide a
better match between work patterns and travel.


How does moving a business reduce the need for transport, people still need
to travel to where ever and in some cases moving away from a location can
been you either chuck trained staff out of jobs or you increase the amount
of commuting.


If the business was located in a congested area such as a city centre,
locating it outside reduces the need for mass transit to the city
centre and makes it easier for people to work flexible hours since
thay can easily drive and park.






I didn't say that all mass transport can go away, simply that the
forms and needs of transport would change for the better.

People still need to travel, if they can't travel by PT then they are going
to use their own, that is unsustainable.

Yes, but if businesses relocate outside city centres and home working
increases, the need for travel to the most congested places and the
most busy times is significantly reduced.

The majority of public transport is inconvenient, unpleasant, dirty
and costs more than private alternatives. It isn't practical to
fix the convenience factor.





Clearly not all the cases can be covered, but around 75-80% of
households now own at least one car.

And with two people working, one gets to work the can't...


So the provisioning of public transport should look at the needs of
the remaining 20% and not try to force the majority to use something
that does not meet their needs.


And just how are you going to accommodate that 80 percent on the roads, the
road system can't cope now ? Oh, I know, private toll roads....

They already are accomodated. The major issue is that destinations in
city centres lead to congestion. The answer is not to discourage
cars from going to them but to have the destinations more distributed
as well as reducing the need to travel in the first place.

Private toll roads would certainly be a good idea for long distance
routes.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

":::Jerry::::" wrote
| Yes, they're so much better. Cleaner, more frequent, trains,
| new stations and lines being opened,
| Sorry, but would you care to name a 'new station' or line,
| apart from those involved with the CTRL's...

I don't know what a CTRL is, but Camelon and Edinburgh Park stations have
both opened on the Edinburgh-Dunblane line. In Hampshire, Chandler's Ford
station has re-opened. The Stirling-Alloa railway line will reopen, the
Scottish Borders line will probably re-open.

| Time tables are either the same or have been cut back, other than
| on lines that have had recent (state) investment.

Birmingham-Aberystwyth services now run on Sundays; previously there were NO
Sunday trains at all. Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttle services now run every 15
minutes.

| But incompetence at higher levels are even worse, in BR times trains
| were held so that connections were kept, now a train could run empty
| because otherwise someone is fined - what's the point of running an
| empty train on time and leaving 'customers' stranded ? Yes it's the
| extreme end of the argument but so is yours.

I don't see how a train would run completely empty because of a delayed
incoming service, unless there is *no* local custom, and with services on
most parts of the network being hourly or half hourly a missed connection
should not cause too great inconvenience. The answer is to run more trains
on time, which is generally happening. Holding a train back for an incoming
connection means that people on the held train are delayed instead, and
means that trains cannot keep to their timetabled paths on the network,
cascading problems.

| Scottish customers pay more for their water and sewerage from the
| nationalised Scottish Water than customers of the private sector
| down south.
| Just because it's still in state ownership or because the service
| costs more to run ?

No incentive in the public sector to meet customer needs or operate
competitively. Tesco can deliver as much shopping as I want within a
two-hour time slot of my choice for half the price the local council charge
to come and collect non-bin rubbish.

Owain

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:15:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip
Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html


One would need to read carefully and not quote selectively as you did.

He almost has some good ideas until he becomes confused about
taxation.


IYHO, of course....

Hisd opinion is not honest.


I was thinking more in terms of 'Humble'...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

They use aeroplanes that fly. They don't use rails.


But they do use 'flight paths', and you can only have so many aircraft
in
any section at a time, it's not an unlimited free for all up there -
Thank
Gawd !

Not the same as all rains running down one track. Not the same.

Stop showing off how little you know ! Do some basic research on flight
paths....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

And that is my last word.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:47:36 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

I would have said that the boot is on the other foot.


And that is my last word.

That's probably best...





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

Are you sure you are not IMM in disguise? That seems to be his MO; as
soon as he has run out of coherent argument he resorts to Ad Hominem
attacks.

And that is my last word.

Promise?

Phew!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

Are you sure you are not IMM in disguise? That seems to be his MO; as
soon as he has run out of coherent argument he resorts to Ad Hominem
attacks.

No, the point is, it's become a circular argument or would you like this to
descend into the usual IMM - "It is", "It isn't" - type thread ?


And that is my last word.

Promise?

Unless someone else says something new I can't see any point in continuing.


Phew!


I had even considered kill-filing Andy, but apart from his political views
his contributions to the group are worthwhile reading and is probably a very
nice person in person IYSWIM.

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

Are you sure you are not IMM in disguise?
That seems to be his MO;

I have never called Andy a ****, but I can understand this mans frustration.
What do normal people normally call you?

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip more clap

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

Are you sure you are not IMM in disguise? That seems to be his MO; as
soon as he has run out of coherent argument he resorts to Ad Hominem
attacks.

No, the point is, it's become a circular argument or would you like this
to
descend into the usual IMM - "It is", "It isn't" - type thread ?

You are right. Calling him a **** is better.

And that is my last word.

Promise?

Unless someone else says something
new I can't see any point in continuing.


Phew!

I had even considered kill-filing
Andy, but apart from his political views
his contributions to the group are worthwhile
reading

They are?

and is probably a very
nice person in person IYSWIM.

Once a ****, always a ****.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

IMM, clueless about how the air-line industry works....

They use aeroplanes that fly. They don't use rails.


But they do use 'flight paths', and you can only have so many aircraft
in
any section at a time, it's not an unlimited free for all up there -
Thank
Gawd !

Not the same as all rains running down one track. Not the same.

Stop showing off how little you know ! Do some basic research on flight
paths....

Did some work once on ILS: localisers, glide slope, etc. You see I am brill
at everything.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:57:56 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:22:43 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip


If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the
investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard
gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric
locomotives
were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML
was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the
new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight
was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not
just
on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.

This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago.

Of course it's not, but then it does rather place your arguments into the
straw man category...

The point is, it was done successfully once and there is no reason other
than ideology why it couldn't be done again...

The world has moved on from the kind of ideology that you hanker
after. Get over it.

You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.


The problem is not being state owned or funded but the level of funding.

If you look at any economy where the state has or has had a major
involvement in ownership and running of a large part, it has failed
miserably or continues to fail miserably.

You only have to look at the former Warsaw Pact countries to see the
enormous improvements in quality of life as inward investment picks up
following the demise of the state controlling everything.

Not at all. Why shouldn't it be? I see no hypocrisy at all, and
actually better management of my taxes.

That is plain hypocrisy and dog-minded bull - state bad, private
ownership
good.

I think that you have muddled thinking here. There is no logical
reason at all why the state should not purchase services from
organisations outside its direct ownership.

One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.


You are nothing but a carpet bager if you think it bad for state owned
serviced to be funded but it's OK for private companies to have such
public funding.


Oh please.

I just read this and it is appalling; I can see why Jerry expeleted. No idea
whatsoever. No idea. Sad but true.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Andy, IMO you are a clueless **** :~(

Are you sure you are not IMM in disguise? That seems to be his MO; as
soon as he has run out of coherent argument he resorts to Ad Hominem
attacks.


No, the point is, it's become a circular argument or would you like this to
descend into the usual IMM - "It is", "It isn't" - type thread ?

I quite agree that further discussion is pointless - positions are too
firmly entrenched. However that does not seem to be justification for
personal attacks and name calling. You may be diametrically opposed to
Andy's (or my) point of view, but his arguments are always backed by
plausible reasoning (even if you dispute the assumptions/data/beliefs
upon which they are founded) and are in general made politely.

I had even considered kill-filing Andy, but apart from his political views

Given the supposed topic of this group is DIY, and Andy is one of the
many on this group with a proven track record of giving sound advice,
that would probably be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

(I don't even killfile our pet troll, on the basis that if you listen to
someone long enough eventually you will find something of value in what
they say... well that and the entertainment value of the ever decreasing
circles of night = day argument ;-).


--
Cheers,

John.

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