"Andy Hall" wrote
| Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes
| will take much longer to have an impact.
| You think a Barrett hutch is going to last that long ??
| Possibly not, but hopefully more than ten years.

It should last more than ten years, maybe a day more. NHBC warranty is ten
years.

Owain

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:22:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Since I've been involved in the design,
engineering, marketing and
selling of products at various times,
I do have an appreciation of
what is involved.

You don't. You know nothing of eco homes or the construction business and
lack common sense.

We'll agree to differ on that one.


Encourage selfbuilding and individual
homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self
building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are
acceptable to those living near
them.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

I didn't say that at all.

You implied that. Appalling.

I implied nothing of the sort.


You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of
factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

A product is made to standards.

There is a great deal more to it than that.

There isn't much more at all.

I would recommend that you never attempt to start a business.


If all are to an eco standard then the
public will know the standard and buy accordingly.

Only if educated on the benefits,

That will happen. I recall how people from Victorian slums (now they put in
a bathroom and call them cottages) moved into new homes with CH. They
couldn't understand what a thermostats was, never mind a time clock. They
thought it was an on-off switch. Many abandoned the Ch and put in an
expensive to run electric fire and all huddled around it. Now people
understand CH and no one in their right minds does what they did. People
know what a thermostat and programmer is. They know about rad valves, etc.
they are all educated up to it.

.... and it will probably taken a similar period of time to educate
them on the next thing.

In short, they will only
have an eco choice in a new house.
So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to
them another 100 homes of similar size
and spec that are not, the eco homes
will command a higher price.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all.

It does.

It may for you because this is an important criterion to you.
If you want to pay more for an eco home, go ahead.
Today, most people won't. They don't care enough. Not an issue for
them.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid
cheaper to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is
equivalent to paying an extra 10 grand for the house.

So if buying one to this better specification is only £5K more, it
should be a no-brainer. But I suspect that the truth is (and which is
why we have Building Regs) that you would be hard pushed to get an
extra £1K.

Take boilers: pay an extra £100-200 and you will save an extra
£25-100. But 90% (?) of people who have a boiler replaced only want
to know how cheaply it can be done, not what it will cost to run. I'm
shortly swapping my fridge: likely replacement comes in two flavours,
A and B rated efficiency. Extra cost of the A rated, £20. Reckoned
saving 100 units p.a. = £7. If most purchasers were at all interested
in energy they'd have given up making the B grade model ages ago.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:27:43 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Conservatories can range from cheap to more expensive than an
extension.. They also largely avoid bureaucracy. There's a clue
there as well.

The clue is they as responsible for an amazingly unnecessary amount of CO2
being emitted and reduction of fuel reserves too, because they have
virtually no insulation value.


You might like to do a survey of conservatory purchasers and ask them
why they bought one, or those that opted for an alternative. I very
much doubt whether you would find that many people opted for an
extension rather than a conservatory because they thought it saved
CO2 emissions.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:30:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.


Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

No. Hve you read it?

Why don't you send me a copy for Christmas.

Amazon will sell you one right now and cheaply too.

You'd better find another title before the royalties dry up
completely...


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:22:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Since I've been involved in the design,
engineering, marketing and
selling of products at various times,
I do have an appreciation of
what is involved.

You don't. You know nothing of eco homes or the construction business
and
lack common sense.

We'll agree to differ on that one.

A clear fact though.

Encourage selfbuilding and individual
homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self
building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are
acceptable to those living near
them.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

I didn't say that at all.

You implied that. Appalling.

I implied nothing of the sort.

You did.

You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of
factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

A product is made to standards.

There is a great deal more to it than that.

There isn't much more at all.

I would recommend that you never attempt to start a business.

you should have said, "I would recommend that you never attempt to start a
business like I would".

If all are to an eco standard then the
public will know the standard and buy accordingly.

Only if educated on the benefits,

That will happen. I recall how people from Victorian slums (now they put
in
a bathroom and call them cottages) moved into new homes with CH. They
couldn't understand what a thermostats was, never mind a time clock.
They
thought it was an on-off switch. Many abandoned the Ch and put in an
expensive to run electric fire and all huddled around it. Now people
understand CH and no one in their right minds does what they did. People
know what a thermostat and programmer is. They know about rad valves,
etc.
they are all educated up to it.

... and it will probably taken a similar period of time to educate
them on the next thing.

In short, they will only
have an eco choice in a new house.
So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to
them another 100 homes of similar size
and spec that are not, the eco homes
will command a higher price.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all.

It does.

It may for you because this is an important criterion to you.
If you want to pay more for an eco home,

You don't pay more for eco homes. Look at Sue Roaf's house and Devevi's
homes in Scotland. You lack information retention. You have been told this
many times.

See:
http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/subj/search/Re...Sust-H-Design/
Publications/zeroleaflet.htm

You have to read all the books I have mentioned here on these threads and
all the web site links. You need some work to de-condition your brain.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:10:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




you should have said, "I would recommend that you never attempt to start a
business like I would".

... or like I (successfully) did.




You don't pay more for eco homes. Look at Sue Roaf's house

Ugly as sin with all those solar panels on the roof. There is a
conservatory, or is it termed an eco-solar-gain structure, which then
makes it OK.?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid
cheaper to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is
equivalent to paying an extra 10 grand for the house.

So if buying one to this better specification is only £5K more, it
should be a no-brainer. But I suspect that the truth is (and which is
why we have Building Regs) that you would be hard pushed to get an
extra £1K.

Take boilers: pay an extra £100-200
and you will save an extra
£25-100. But 90% (?) of people who
have a boiler replaced only want
to know how cheaply it can be done,
not what it will cost to run.

Most are pushed into non-condensers by ignorant "plumbers". Shortly
condensers will be the only boilers you can buy. A great positive move by
the governments departments.

I'm shortly swapping my fridge: likely replacement comes in two flavours,
A and B rated efficiency. Extra cost of the A rated, £20. Reckoned
saving 100 units p.a. = £7. If most purchasers were at all interested
in energy they'd have given up making the B grade model ages ago.

In three years you break even at current energy costs, which will go up in
price, so probably about 2.5 years, after that savings all the way.

The energy levels should be re-assessed. There are appliances that are "way"
above the minimum A grade. Only "A" should be sold anyway. Why sell energy
sucking appliances? Ridiculous! We don't want a Californian energy problems
of a few years back, which was created mainly by the energy sucking domestic
appliances.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:27:43 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Conservatories can range from cheap to more expensive than an
extension.. They also largely avoid bureaucracy. There's a clue
there as well.

The clue is they as responsible for an amazingly unnecessary amount of
CO2
being emitted and reduction of fuel reserves too, because they have
virtually no insulation value.


You might like to do a survey of conservatory purchasers and ask them
why they bought one, or those that opted for an alternative. I very
much doubt whether you would find that many people opted for an
extension rather than a conservatory because they thought it saved
CO2 emissions.

You missed the point as usual.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:10:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

you should have said, "I would recommend that
you never attempt to start a
business like I would".

.. or like I (successfully) did.

Hot pies always sell well.

You don't pay more for eco homes.
Look at Sue Roaf's house

Ugly as sin with all those solar panels on the roof.

It is a very good looking house, well it looks like all the others around
it.

There is a
conservatory, or is it termed an eco-solar-gain
structure, which then makes it OK.?

It is a sort of porch. It does not use an amazing amount of energy to heat,
as conservatories do, as no heating system is in it.

Now read all that web site properly.

Bob wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption for which there is no evidence at
all.



Well I wouldn't buy one, so count me out of that 99%.

All the things that make it "eco" make it unpleasant to live in - things
like low ceilings, air tight rooms and strange modern materials that make
people sick. Not to mention the sheer uglyness and brutality of most
modern designs (why do they think everyone wants walls of glass and a house
that looks and feels like an office?)


Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.





Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

Fine.



Roll on fusion power then. Then we can heat our homes guilt free, and not
have to suffer the awful compromises demanded by eco-nuts.

Bob

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip


Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.





snip

It would be difficult to take advantage of passive solar gains in an
underground house. Also, I can't see how living in a house with light
pipes instead of windows could possible be the "best" solution from a
human point of view, even if it was thermally efficient.

Nick Brooks

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid
cheaper to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is
equivalent to paying an extra 10 grand for the house.


So if buying one to this better specification is only £5K more, it
should be a no-brainer. But I suspect that the truth is (and which is
why we have Building Regs) that you would be hard pushed to get an
extra £1K.

Take boilers: pay an extra £100-200 and you will save an extra
£25-100. But 90% (?) of people who have a boiler replaced only want
to know how cheaply it can be done, not what it will cost to run. I'm
shortly swapping my fridge: likely replacement comes in two flavours,
A and B rated efficiency. Extra cost of the A rated, £20. Reckoned
saving 100 units p.a. = £7. If most purchasers were at all interested
in energy they'd have given up making the B grade model ages ago.


Well, I'll give you my take on low energy fridges.

Where does the extra energy go?

Into heating my house. OK I am paying 6p a Kw/h as against 2.5p for oil,
but its not a net total loss.

So every bit of energy efficient electrical stuff has to have the so
called gains offset by the amount of oil LESS I burn to keep warm.

Its the same with 'we could save the country XXX by half filling the kettle'

No, we could save the country about .6 of X at best.

In terms of boiler replacement, its an easy calculation. 2% off you
energy bill for what - a couple of hundred quid.

In terms of e.g. double glazing its a phenomenal con. DG alone (if you
remove the dramatic effects that sealing windows properly has on heat
loss) never ever pays for itself, unless you have HUGE windows.

Floor and wall insulation is very marginal when fitted post build due to
the expense of doing it - apart from dry lining which is very cost
effective.

Only loft insulation is simple and cheap enough to do to be a complete
no brainer for any householder.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption for which there is no evidence at
all.



Well I wouldn't buy one, so count me out of that 99%.

All the things that make it "eco" make it unpleasant to live in - things
like low ceilings, air tight rooms and strange modern materials that
make
people sick. Not to mention the sheer uglyness and brutality of most
modern designs (why do they think everyone wants walls of glass and a
house
that looks and feels like an office?)


Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.

If you say so....

"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.

snip

It would be difficult to take advantage of passive solar gains in an
underground house. Also, I can't see how living in a house with light
pipes instead of windows could possible be the "best" solution from a
human point of view, even if it was thermally efficient.

Those who do, tend to have a south facing aspect with windows. The rear
parts covered in earth would have light pipes which would contain bathrooms,
storage, etc. Those who live in such homes love them.

http://www.hockerton.demon.co.uk

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid
cheaper to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is
equivalent to paying an extra 10 grand for the house.


So if buying one to this better specification is only £5K more, it
should be a no-brainer. But I suspect that the truth is (and which is
why we have Building Regs) that you would be hard pushed to get an
extra £1K.

Take boilers: pay an extra £100-200 and you will save an extra
£25-100. But 90% (?) of people who have a boiler replaced only want
to know how cheaply it can be done, not what it will cost to run. I'm
shortly swapping my fridge: likely replacement comes in two flavours,
A and B rated efficiency. Extra cost of the A rated, £20. Reckoned
saving 100 units p.a. = £7. If most purchasers were at all interested
in energy they'd have given up making the B grade model ages ago.


Well, I'll give you my take on low energy fridges.

Where does the extra energy go?

Into heating my house. OK I am paying 6p a Kw/h as against 2.5p for oil,
but its not a net total loss.

Except in summer when the heat, which you have paid for, is totally
unwanted.

So every bit of energy efficient electrical stuff has to have the so
called gains offset by the amount of oil LESS I burn to keep warm.

Its the same with 'we could save the country XXX by half filling the
kettle'

No, we could save the country about .6 of X at best.

In terms of boiler replacement, its an easy calculation. 2% off you
energy bill for what - a couple of hundred quid.

2%?? Where did dyou get that from? My oh my.

In terms of e.g. double glazing its a phenomenal con. DG alone (if you
remove the dramatic effects that sealing windows properly has on heat
loss) never ever pays for itself, unless you have HUGE windows.

Floor and wall insulation is very marginal when fitted post build due to
the expense of doing it - apart from dry lining which is very cost
effective.

Only loft insulation is simple and cheap enough to do to be a complete
no brainer for any householder.

Nick Brooks wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip



Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.





snip


It would be difficult to take advantage of passive solar gains in an
underground house. Also, I can't see how living in a house with light
pipes instead of windows could possible be the "best" solution from a
human point of view, even if it was thermally efficient.


Ah, but as any weak brained tosser (=IMM) knows, what is Good For The
Environment Is Good For Humans....:-)


If the insulation is good enough, you don't need the passive solar gains
anyway. 3 meters of earth is better than 60 mm of celotex. And IMMS hot
air will keep him warm forever, and he can always burn his farts in winter.

And the house SHOULD be hermetically sealed - we don't want any precious
oxygen being used by IMM, or and Co2 from his hot air, not to mention
methane from his farts, contributing to global warming do we?

And if he suffocates, that's a huge win win for everyone. One less
consumer of energy, and one source of moral, ecological and verbal
pollution less? One less parasite. And the world a less crowded place.

Its so simple and sane, it has to happen :-)



Nick Brooks

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Nick Brooks wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip



Best eco house would be an airconditioned underground bunker.

Lit by light pipes.

No windows at all.

snip

It would be difficult to take advantage of passive solar gains in an
underground house. Also, I can't see how living in a house with light
pipes instead of windows could possible be the "best" solution from a
human point of view, even if it was thermally efficient.


Ah, but

snip incoherent babble

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:28:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:10:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

you should have said, "I would recommend that
you never attempt to start a
business like I would".

.. or like I (successfully) did.

Hot pies always sell well.

Do they?

You don't pay more for eco homes.
Look at Sue Roaf's house

Ugly as sin with all those solar panels on the roof.

It is a very good looking house, well it looks like all the others around
it.

So they all have photocells on the roof? I don't think so.


There is a
conservatory, or is it termed an eco-solar-gain
structure, which then makes it OK.?

It is a sort of porch. It does not use an amazing amount of energy to heat,
as conservatories do, as no heating system is in it.

ROTFL. It's one of the biggest "porches" I've ever seen..




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
Well, I'll give you my take on low energy fridges.

Where does the extra energy go?

Into heating my house. OK I am paying 6p a Kw/h as against 2.5p for
oil, but its not a net total loss.

So every bit of energy efficient electrical stuff has to have the so
called gains offset by the amount of oil LESS I burn to keep warm.

Its the same with 'we could save the country XXX by half filling the
kettle'
No, we could save the country about .6 of X at best.

Yes, the extra energy used does cut the amount needed for heating ...
but only if you are heating the place. On a hot day like today the
fridge is working harder and making the house less comfortable.

In terms of boiler replacement, its an easy calculation. 2% off you
energy bill for what - a couple of hundred quid.

More like 10%. Doubtful economics on a small modern flat perhaps.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:22:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The energy levels should be re-assessed. There are appliances that are "way"
above the minimum A grade. Only "A" should be sold anyway. Why sell energy
sucking appliances? Ridiculous! We don't want a Californian energy problems
of a few years back, which was created mainly by the energy sucking domestic
appliances.

There's nothing wrong with grade A appliances as long as they works as
well as others, and generally they do.

The energy problems in California were created by an incompetent
governor who signed up for ridiculous energy contracts which weren't
necessary without understanding the consequences of his actions.
Quite rightly, he got the sack.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:22:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The energy levels should be re-assessed. There are appliances that
are "way" above the minimum A grade. Only "A" should be sold
anyway. Why sell energy sucking appliances? Ridiculous! We don't
want a Californian energy problems of a few years back, which was
created mainly by the energy sucking domestic appliances.

There's nothing wrong with grade A appliances as long as they works as
well as others, and generally they do.

The energy problems in California were created by an incompetent
governor who signed up for ridiculous energy contracts which weren't
necessary without understanding the consequences of his actions.
Quite rightly, he got the sack.


The contracts caused problems with prices (from the way that the electricity
market was structured) and caused a problem with prices (although California
electricity prices were already 3 times what they are here, even before the
changes).

The problem of supply in California is caused by the failure to approve the
building of new power stations to meet rising demand from computers and air
conditioners. We have the eco-nuts to thank for that.

Bob

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:28:29 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:10:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

you should have said, "I would recommend that
you never attempt to start a
business like I would".

.. or like I (successfully) did.

Hot pies always sell well.

Do they?

You should know.

You don't pay more for eco homes.
Look at Sue Roaf's house

Ugly as sin with all those solar panels on the roof.

It is a very good looking house, well it looks like all the others around
it.

So they all have photocells on the roof? I don't think so.

Only on one elevation. Pay attention. Focus for once.

There is a
conservatory, or is it termed an eco-solar-gain
structure, which then makes it OK.?

It is a sort of porch. It does not use an amazing amount of energy to
heat,
as conservatories do, as no heating system is in it.

ROTFL.

You ROFLed at that?

It's one of the biggest "porches" I've ever seen..

Good isn't it.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:22:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The energy levels should be re-assessed. There are appliances that are
"way"
above the minimum A grade. Only "A" should be sold anyway. Why sell
energy
sucking appliances? Ridiculous! We don't want a Californian energy
problems
of a few years back, which was created mainly by the energy sucking
domestic
appliances.

There's nothing wrong with grade A appliances as long as they works as
well as others, and generally they do.

The energy problems in California were created by an incompetent
governor who signed up for ridiculous energy contracts which weren't
necessary without understanding the consequences of his actions.
Quite rightly, he got the sack.

Is Arnie going to shoot them if they F**k up again?

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
Well, I'll give you my take on low energy fridges.

Where does the extra energy go?

Into heating my house. OK I am paying 6p a Kw/h as against 2.5p for
oil, but its not a net total loss.

So every bit of energy efficient electrical stuff has to have the so
called gains offset by the amount of oil LESS I burn to keep warm.

Its the same with 'we could save the country XXX by half filling the
kettle'
No, we could save the country about .6 of X at best.

Yes, the extra energy used does cut the amount needed for heating ...
but only if you are heating the place. On a hot day like today the
fridge is working harder and making the house less comfortable.

In terms of boiler replacement, its an easy calculation. 2% off you
energy bill for what - a couple of hundred quid.

More like 10%. Doubtful economics on a small modern flat perhaps.

More like 20-25% in many cases, and 40% better when replacing an old cast
iron effort.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:22:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The energy levels should be re-assessed. There are appliances that
are "way" above the minimum A grade. Only "A" should be sold
anyway. Why sell energy sucking appliances? Ridiculous! We don't
want a Californian energy problems of a few years back, which was
created mainly by the energy sucking domestic appliances.

There's nothing wrong with grade A appliances as long as they works as
well as others, and generally they do.

The energy problems in California were created by an incompetent
governor who signed up for ridiculous energy contracts which weren't
necessary without understanding the consequences of his actions.
Quite rightly, he got the sack.


The contracts caused problems with prices (from the way that the
electricity
market was structured) and caused a problem with prices (although
California
electricity prices were already 3 times what they are here, even before
the
changes).

The problem of supply in California is caused by the failure to approve
the
building of new power stations to meet rising demand from computers and
air
conditioners. We have the eco-nuts to thank for that.

More illogical ramblings. The so-called eco nuts were pressing for house
that use no to little energy to cools and highly efficient appliances. They
just didn't want nuclear that's all. The problem in California was not the
supply problem, it was the energy usage problem. They unnecessarily consumed
far too much. High energy appliances, and that includes a/c units too, and
homes that do not require a/c and there would have been no problem.

In your warped world we could abandon all emission and energy regs and choke
ourselves to death. Amazing from a man in country where in 1952 a London
smog killed more than the blitz. Firstly, you need a history lesson ad they
taught how emissions are current crippling us. Not to mention that we are
running out of valuable oil. The Share of Iran said "oil is too valuable to
burn". Yet we burn it with gay abandon.

IMM wrote:
snip

in country where in 1952 a London
smog killed more than the blitz. Firstly, you need a history lesson

snip

I. afraid it's you who needs a history lesson

The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000 people.

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz, with over
50,000 injured, and around 130,000 houses destroyed.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/wwii.html

Consider bothering to check your facts before posting

"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
snip

in country where in 1952 a London
smog killed more than the blitz. Firstly, you need a history lesson

snip

I. afraid it's you who needs a history lesson

The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000 people.

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz,

The 1952 smog killed more in one day than in any single blitz raid.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:05:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
snip

in country where in 1952 a London
smog killed more than the blitz. Firstly, you need a history lesson

snip

I. afraid it's you who needs a history lesson

The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000 people.

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz,

The 1952 smog killed more in one day than in any single blitz raid.



... and Tooting won the FA Cup because they moved the goal posts....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:05:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
snip

in country where in 1952 a London
smog killed more than the blitz. Firstly, you need a history lesson

snip

I. afraid it's you who needs a history lesson

The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000 people.


http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz,

The 1952 smog killed more in one day than in any single blitz raid.



.. and Tooting won the FA Cup because they moved the goal posts....

You are porky telling. Tooting have never won the FA Cup.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:26:35 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:05:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...


The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000 people.


http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz,

The 1952 smog killed more in one day than in any single blitz raid.



.. and Tooting won the FA Cup because they moved the goal posts....

You are porky telling. Tooting have never won the FA Cup.


You can do anything if you move the goal posts. You should know
that.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:26:35 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:05:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...


The accepted figure is that the London smog killed around 4000
people.


http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm

42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the blitz,

The 1952 smog killed more in one day than in any single blitz raid.



.. and Tooting won the FA Cup because they moved the goal posts....

You are porky telling. Tooting have never won the FA Cup.


You can do anything if you move the goal posts. You should know
that.

Where the goalposts on wheels? Typical! A Sarf Lahndan team cheating.