Huguenot

Eh, what? New Nexus, you're subscribing to the belief that "trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials." Your evidence for this is a US congressman who uses the term in the same breath as 'psychotronic weapons' (which is essentially killing people by staring at them to death using the power of your brain) - a phrase referring to a fictitious cult weapon used in a 1980 B-Movie? You are messed up.

This is a thread about condensation trails, and you've attempted to divert it to flouridation in the US. You've quoted 50 facts that basically boil down to 49 that can be classifed as speculative or irrelevant, and just one that's the traditional New Nexus moronic US free market principle 'the New World Order are putting this in our water without our consent' 'Fluoride may... [...]' is pointless Daily Mail bollocks, where coffee, chocolate and red wine both cure and cause cancer on an oscillation lasting several hours. Incidentally, just to really hammer the point home, in the UK decisions on fluoridation are made on a local basis by elected indiviudals in our representative democracy based on sound medical advice. Unlike in your head, where decisions are made based on stupid made-up nonsense.

That's right NN - they put fluoride in the water BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR BRAIN. However small it is

What the racists see is a correlation between poverty and skin colour and assume causation. It's tiresome, because those who want to create a skin colour based solution to poverty can't believe that they're simply being racist - mainly because they feel that they're trying to do good.

The disagreement here seems to be between single-issue stakeholders refusing to see the the project from the point of view of its many other objectives. Yes getting Londoners around town efficiently and effectively is one, so is disabled access and so are the environmental considerations. Howener, the Routemasters were always much more than this - they were an icon of London and the UK that positioned us on the world stage as a quirky nation with a sense of tradition and independence. You rarely see iconic photos of London or Britain overseas that don't have a Routemaster in shot. Retaining that positioning benefits us in terms of tourist dollars and international business. I thought the bendys were a tragedy at so many levels - difficult to drive around London's streets, a threat to other road users, a characterless tilt at modernism, an inefficient use of limited roadspace... The new Routemaster takes all this into account - and to attribute the R&D costs to the first 10 buses as 'proof of their poor value for money' is patently stupid. It's base electioneering, and is a demonstration of the cynical intent of politicians willing to deceive the electorate to try and deliver substandard planning and solutions that London doesn't need.

I don't want to point out the bleeding obvious, but the current IKEA TV corner stand has castors and is only ?45.99 Find it here in all it's stripped down beech beauty. Since the example shown by katurner is pine, rather than beech, and without the castors - I'd warrant that the ?40 katurner is demanding is more than they originally paid for the cabinet. And yet people who won't pay that are the bastards?

Seller With Piece of Average House Rubbish Calls Everyone Who Won't Buy It 'Bastards' Shocker When asked to justify the abuse they respond, that 'they're all yuppies, they can afford to give me loads of cash for bent plastic chair leg, but they won't because I was always going to beat them up in pub anyway' explanation.

Just register again with a different username, and then use that one ;-)

It's a bizarre take on selling stuff - the idea that buying something of yours demands an act of generosity towards you from people that you hate. Why would people want to buy something from someone who can barely control their malice whilst they snatch the money from their hand? What a shitpig.

I care about it, but other than the exclusion of herditary peers and the church, I can't see much of an alternative to the current set up. It's supposed to act as a check/balance on elected parliament, an idea I wholeheartedly agree with. If it were elected, and were elected at the same time as the Commons, then it would simply reflect the same political composition as the Commons and so couldn't perform that task. If it were elected at a different time, then the composition would change, resulting in whichever House were elected more recently to have more 'legitimacy' than the other - because it more closely reflected the current views of the electorate. This would result in a flip/flop of power on a two year cycle - which is really too short to research, define, implement and optimise government policy. It seems a House of state elders with a long and celebrated career behind them, without fear of the ballot box or the party whip, are ideally placed to chuck back at the Commons knee jerk policies that are full of crap.

I like Chippy implying that the 'lack of competition' in building the bus was a bad thing ;-) If he's up for compeition I'm hanging on to his coat tails!

I'm not sure that the Catholic Church actually hates women, so much as it is entirely indifferent to the needs of a second class human being. It would far prefer that you knew your place. It never occured to me that the rhythmn method had that particular side effect, which is rather shameful in retrospect.

You're insisting that this study is all about Scottish politicians and English right wingers? You're claiming that this is because Canadians are fighting to right past injustices against Scotland because of a blood feud?

Ahem! ::o I've reread the thread, and I seemed to discuss content, contributors, editing issues, funding, delivery mechanisms and long term viability? References to the aggrandisement of local individuals came under the content elements, and as a rough judge was less than 5% of the wordcount. I'm not really interested in playing therapist to preening narcissists on this thread, I only referred to it as an example of poor editorial. I'm quite happy to continue discussing it from this perspective?

And the problem with your analysis Chippy is that you don't actually read what you post. Let's have a look shall we? The RCGP only expressed concerns - a perfectly reassonable response to change. I'm always concerned to cross the road, it's not a disaster because I do. And what they are concerned about is a 'potential' outcome - not an actual outcome. The RCA worry about the impact of 'unfettered competition' - that's not what's proposed, so it's not exactly relevant is it? The point about cost and distraction is hardly impressive - every change involves costs and distractions, the question is whether the outcome is an improvement. The RCO talk about 'risks' not consequences - this is hardly a substantive objection. Others complain about reductions in funding for their key area - no great surprise, and to protest this is not calling into question the validity of the bill, it's just a funding demand by a single issue group. Yet others say that it's their members that decide - and in that case how well informed are these members, and what is the insurance that these members aren't simply voting for their own personal interests? The point is Chippy, you can't answer these observations. At the foot of these objections are either the self-interests of the practitioners, or understandable concern about change in general. Neither of those are substantive.

I'm surprised by your prioritisation UDT, 'you can't change things because you said you wouldn't' is hardly the complaint of an adult is it? Your second point is simply untrue, and you bring nothing to the table if you can't be bothered to be honest about the situation. You're simply grandstanding. In reality, responses from the healthcare community range from mild unfocused anxiety to full blown paranoia, and challenges to the plan range from isolated nitpicking to complete outright dogmatic rejection. Finally it is ridiculous that anyone should know evertyhing about everything, apart from you with your boundless expertise in finance, premiership footballing, hifi, gardening and much much more. That not all Conservative MPs can recite the details of the healthcare plan is no reason not to implement it, I'd expect them to leave that to the appropriate department and get on with their own jobs.

No Thomas, your supersize ego may allow you to hijack a thread to talk about you you you, but I'm going to have to play the adult here and remind you that the other children deserve their turn too.

The study was Canadian uncleglen, and probably were only dimly interested in Scotland regarding the research, and probably poorly motivated to get into a pissing contest about the interaction between Scottish parliamentarians and right wingers inngeneral.

And this is the problem with the NHS, because every time anybody tries to reform it, a bunch of crazies leap up screaming about it being the first step to privatisation and removal of healthcare for all. This is why these people don't get invited to reform consultations, because they have nothing constructive they're prepared to add. They've got plenty they could add, but they simply won't.

Or perhaps what you're really recommending is to start a process of 'consultation' with a group of organisations who you've already explained are only interested in maximising the remuneration, idle time, holidays and perks of its members? Certainly there's no evidence yet that any of those organisations is actually aiming for a healthcare system ready to meet the needs of the 21st century. The first obvious point of conflict of these outfits is that they're dedicated to NOT cutting staff, NOT shrinking the NHS and NOT introducing competition. As with most unionised activity a consultation could last forever, which would be even better.

This seemed a reasonable third party review. The figures are high enough to be plausible... "A geothermal heat pump system costs roughly $2,500 per ton of capacity, according to the California Energy Commission, so an average-size home using a 3-ton unit would end up paying $7,500 or so. Of course, you'll also have to include the cost of drilling to your tab; how much exactly depends on how your system will be positioned, whether it'll be wedged vertically deep underground or horizontally a shorter distance below ground. Drilling costs can fall anywhere between $10,000 and $30,000. While a geothermal system costs more than a conventional oil- or natural-gas-dependent system, the cost of running heat pumps is actually 30 to 40 percent less than a conventional system that runs fossil fuel, meaning you'll be able to save enough on reduced heating and cooling bills to break even in two to 10 years. Durable and almost maintenance-free because their components are sheltered underground away from the elements, geothermal heat pumps are guaranteed to last 25 to 50 years."

There's NOTHING boring about that! :)) What a terrific scheme!

That's plane ridiculous, as wrenching as it may have been, if he'd clamped down on that sort of irresonsible activity, he may never have nailed it. It doesn't auger well.

What was the price for the sake of interest?

I thought you were being kinder about the list than it deserved Marmora Man. When it starts listing crimes such as 'once worked in a company that had a contract' with Accenture, KPMG or PWC it becomes fecking ridiculous. It's not possible to work in a company with over 100 people in that doesn't have dealings with big accountancy firms at some point. And how on earth could any of these roles possibly be 'evidence' of corruption?? Chippy do you honestly honestly believe what you write? Or is this all in reality playing out to some bizarre Trotsky theatre in your head that should have been left behind at the Student Union? It's pathetic.