Green Goose

There's lots of ways -depending on how creative and determined you are. 1. Simple solution- get a piece of corrugated plastic of the type that estate agents boards are made of size about 20" x 20". Buy a pack of blue carpet tacks (cost about ?1.50) Press the carpet tacks through the corrugated plastic in one direction spaced about 2" apart. If you want some plastic, PM me your address and I willl drop some off if you are not too far away. Place the spikey plastic mat on the floor fixed with a few dabs of blu-tac under where your bag is hanging. That should sort him but whatever approach you take to solving this problem be prepared for foxy to take his revenge on you by leaving a "deposit" on your doorstep. 2. Make up a chilli and mustard sandwich and put it in a paper bag and leave that there overnight so that foxy gets to it before the delivery. 3. More expensive - buy a mesh box, like a cat/dog carrier and place milk etc inside but kake sure itt is firmly anchored as foxy will work on it. GG

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GG - in the context of what Jim has posted and the > story he has told, your comments are not necessary > and you come aross as a prize tit, mate. Typical intolerance of an alternative interpretation that does not meet the your view. > > Someone shouts terrorist at a Muslim couple and > you want pity for the perpetrator ? > That kind of event is hate-based. > Also, this BS about phobias, you can look on > Wikipedia all day long but Islamaphobia these days > is about hate, not 'fear'. The derivation of phobia is from the Greek word for fear. I hope you never get a real phobia - but then you might understand better. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=phobia >Where do you get this tripe, the Daily Mail ? .. typical derogatory response from an intolerant bigotted liberal who gets a daily fix from the Guardian. GG

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, > > Was that some kind of joke? If you do not agree with someone's well argued views, why just trash them? That's smacks of bigotry. GG

Jim1234 Wrote: > Clearly it was racism, islamophobia, > discrimination, whatever you want to call it. You make several hasty assumptions. It probably was islamophobia but it may not have been **clearly** "racism" or "discrimination". He/she may have been the same race as you or me or them. Were they white, black or clearly of a different race from the person who shouted out? There are white muslims and Chines muslims out there you know. By using the words **whatever you want to call it**, you are provocatively inviting readers to put whatever other prejudicial words they might want to assume apply. Probably the most applicable label you used is islamophobia i.e. a fear of Islam. The islamophobic person would be conditioned through fear of islam. Probably he/she has experienced or has seen evidence of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam by extremists. People who have phobias ( and there are many of them) should be pitied and helped and not prosecuted and condemned. They suffer on a daily basis with their phobias. So instead of stirring up prejudice through your (unsubstantiated) outcry, you should show some pity to the person with the phobia. GG

OK, here's a positive, creative and quick use for the money. Use it to dress-up vacant shops that give a negative impression ie make a mock-shop. Take for example to one next to William Roses'. If these eyesores are eliminated then that would be of benefit . Have alook here... http://www.britishbids.info/wp-content/uploads/PressCutting_Bournemouth_7Aug15.pdf http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255162/Fake-shopfronts-built-improve-look-recession-hit-high-streets.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407935/High-Street-brought-life-art-Boarded-shops-recession-hit-town-painted-look-like-theyre-business.html

rigbydan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, here is not the time or place to go in to > particulars, though I?m sure it?s all in the > public domain anyway. The initiative will be > funded by HSC and other sources but the project > has not even kicked off yet so all to be agreed as > it develops. You don't want to go into the particulars even though you've been awarded ?21,415! In effect you are saying that you work out as you go along! It's one hell of an indictment on how local government hands out cash. I would also ask... When can we see the cost-benefit analysis to justify this expenditure? Who makes the decisions on expenditure? Who is the treasurer of the project? Who will do the audit when the funds are all spent? When will the invoices and other expenditure details be published? As an owner of three local retail businessses, how much are you chipping in to supplement the ?21,415 given that you will be a major beneficiary?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They get re used somewhere else. So it is solely > the marginal cost to swap lamp posts if needed. That's the most stupid statement I've seen in ages, and from a councillor too! Southwark Council must think monet grows on trees, or lamp posts. It's just like Milton Friedman said aboutthe four ways to spned money.... ?There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you?re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I?m not so careful about the content of the present, but I?m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else?s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else?s money on myself, then I?m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else?s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else?s money on somebody else, I?m not concerned about how much it is, and I?m not concerned about what I get. And that?s government.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rigbydan, can you tell us how much funding was > been given.Thanks. The amount being wasted ( sorry awarded) is ?21,415. And the cost of replacing onelamp post is circa ?1,800

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Go to hell, Sue. Well, whatever you trolls want to > post, this is what happened in Oglander Road today > and also a burglary in Avondale Rise, who the > police thought were by the same people an hour > previously. Keep safe and ignore the trolls on > here who couldn't care less, and who keep arguing > the bloody toss. As always happens, you post > something public spirited, and then it's hijacked > by these ghastly trolls who think it's ok to > nit-pick and take your post off-topic. Yuck. Shame > on them. Good on you Buddug. Don't be put off by Sue. She/He is a right regular PITA

Mands Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it a road traffic accident? Just asking as > there is that cat killer that goes around killing > cats & foxes. What evidence do you have that there is a "cat killer" around who also kills foxes? Even if there is a "cat killer" around then it is highly unlikely that a fox would become a victim. They are very wary, very intelligent and fast.

Why moan about Southwark? They don't do road cleansing 24/7. It's only road-kill and no big deal. If it bothers you that much why dont you uput it in a bin bag then tip it in your brown bin. DiD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a dead fox outside the scout's hut on the > pavement on Bellenden rd, and its been there all > day. I (and I think several others) contacted the > council and they said it would be removed in 4 > hours (including on weekends) but its still there, > with blood all over the pavement. I suppose it > will stay there all night now. Quite distressing. > > > I contacted a local animal charity and they said > it was the council's job. > > I'm not asking for suggestions, just grumbling > about Southwark.

Amaryllis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Even Helen Hayes has petitioned TFL > to change the route and they sadly haven't > listened to her either... Her credibilty is shot as she is always whinging about TFL and train operators. They just ignore her now.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Firstly, I'm not a leftie. Secondly, before you > start spouting ignorance about human rights, try > actually reading the HRA or ECHR. It's not really > that hard to engage brain, you know. Thirdly, > don't give up the day job for the third rate > comedy. Well, with your comments about "Daily Fail or the Sun" you did come across as either a Leftie or even worse a bleeding heart LibDem. A lot of folk out there have had a bellyfull of politicos spouting on about HRA and ECHR.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bruv. CGT on disposal from foreign investors > kicked in in April last year. About ten years too > late but welcome nonetheless. Have been looking on line for info on this but as far as I can see most of the changes apply to non doms who have been resident in UK for over 15 years, as follows:- ""Long term UK resident non domiciliaries will be deemed UK domiciled for income tax and capital gains tax from April 2017"" My interpretation of this is that non residents who are also non doms will continue to avoid CGT, IHT and tax on rental income. A similar situation applies to foreign trusts where the settlors and benficiaries are all non res and non dom. Is this interpretation correct? I ask because someone I know has just bought a flat in London where the ownership was held by a trust registered in South Africa.

OK, if we cannot employ differential tariffs against individual countries, why dont we stick it to the French with non-tariff barriers on wine exports. Like, all wine exports to the UK must be bulk imported (as is much Australian wine nowadays) and then bottled locally.

OK, I accept the source of the figures but I dont think they tell the whole story. Here is the take from another wine expert. He says the WTO rate is 32%. http://wine-pages.com/community/threads/wine-and-the-eu.1484/ GG

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies DaveR - you're right. My sentence > earlier should have read: > > Current EU tariffs on imported wine (of less than > 15% ABV) are between 10 eurocents and 15 eurocents > per litre (depending on strength and whether it is > bottled or bulk). Loz, Well no lessa wine expert than Jancis Robinson reckons 32% applies . Here is an excerpt from http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/what-would-brexit-mean-for-wine-lovers QUOTE Because the UK has negotiated as part of the EU at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), it is likely that it would inherit the EU's tariff regime at the time of leaving, meaning, at least initially, higher prices would be faced by consumers buying imports from the EU and those countries with which the EU has trade agreements. Without any change, a 32% tariff would be levied on imports of wine, for instance.' Yes, you read that correctly, 32% ... This is a worst case, however. An alternative is most likely to be agreed as part of a negotiated position between the UK and EU following Brexit. The UK market is such a big market for Spanish, French and Italian wine producers that you would expect that the removal or significant reduction in the WTO's 32% tariff would have to be part of any deal. UNQUOTE

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The key item is the 32% tariff currently imposed > > by the EU on wines from elsewhere in the world. > Well, if that is your 'key item' you can forget > about it, because you are utterly wrong. You are > confusing current EU tariffs with the standard WTO > tariff. Or, in other words, if they fall back to > the standard WTO rates, that is what the UK will > charge come Brexit for ALL imports of wine. You just don't get it do you. We don't have to fall back on WTO tariff rates. We can make a tariff rate at whatever %age we want on selected items like French wines -just like the EU do at 32% on non-EU wine imports. Same as we can set the rate for German cars. That's when it will really hit home to the French and the Gerries. The UK imports much, much more from Germany and France than we export to them - hence we have the whip hand on the negotiations. The French and Germans are the two countries that run the show in Brussels and that's why Teresa May went to Berlin and Paris last week. The other members of the EU are relatively insignificant in terms of influence. If we set out now to agree free trade with other countries (eg USA, Japan, Canada, Korea, Australia, China etc etc) in advance of leaving the EU, then we hve massive leverage against the EU when it comes to negotiating with them. They have more to loose than the UK.

The key item is the 32% tariff currently imposed by the EU on wines from elsewhere in the world. So, as I said before let wine from Australia,Chile, USA, New Zealand, South Africa, etc etc come in duty free whilst we impose 32% tariff on French wines, now that would really make the French sit up and take notice. That and French elections next year ( watch Le Pen) will see a massive change in sentiment in France. Now we could let the German and Italian wine imports off relatively lightly just to show that we not at all baised. Whilst letting the Gerries off on the wine trade we need to hit their car exports hard with say a 20% tariff on their luxury cars. The UK is the biggest market in the world for them 810,000 pa!! Project fear failed so don't let the same crew tell us that we dont have a strong bargaining position with Europe on Brexit. We have, and we should exploit it fully. GG

Interesting article in today's Times........... QUOTE July 25 2016, 12:01am, The Times If we play clever, we can keep our EU trade Dominic Raab To deliver independence, Nelson Mandela quipped, his country had to break the ?vicious cycle of dependence imposed on us by . . . those in command of immense market power?. As we negotiate Brexit, we need to step out of the shadows of Brussels? more benign but still debilitating hold, and grasp the virtuous cycle that independence from the European Union offers. The referendum was won on the clear basis that Britain would take back control of its borders, money and democracy. When the prime minister says Brexit means Brexit, she is signalling that exit negotiations won?t involve haggling on those issues. They are non-negotiable. Ending free movement of people from the EU is a given, not a bargaining chip. What is on the table is the extent to which we can retain maximum access to the single market for British companies. It makes sense to secure terms before we leave because they could then be agreed by a qualified majority of EU governments, not dependent upon a unanimous vote. The deal would be less vulnerable to being held hostage by any one country?s special interests, or isolated political spitefulness. Either way, going into any discussion you need to know your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (Batna). The British Batna is to leave the EU with no deal and rely on World Trade Organisation rules. The average EU tariff for non-members is 3.6 per cent, rising to 10 per cent on cars and 22 per cent on agricultural goods. Of course, even inside the EU, barriers to trade in services are rife. Outside, we would continue to trade with our European friends at a strong clip. But how can we minimise new trade barriers in the Brexit negotiations? We?re not negotiating from scratch. Our starting point is strong. We have tariff-free access, and EU businesses sell British consumers ?68 billion more each year in goods and services than our companies sell back. New trade barriers would hit continental exporters disproportionately, costing them sales and jobs. That?s why groups such as the German BDI, representing 100,000 businesses and eight million workers, oppose new tariffs on Britain. The more Britain expands its global trade, the more competitive pressure we exert on our existing trade partners and the stronger the EU?s commercial interest in minimising trade barriers with the UK becomes. To maximise that leverage requires a close partnership between the two big names on the British side of the negotiations ? David Davis, who is leading talks with the EU, and Liam Fox, who is charged with reaching free trade agreements (FTAs) beyond Europe. Let?s buy wine from Australia without the EU?s 32 per cent tariff Dr Fox can?t bring any FTAs into force until we leave the EU, but he can tee them up for the day after. UK trade envoys can be dispatched immediately to Australia and New Zealand, the fourth and fifth biggest exporters of wine to the UK, to explain that we wish to sign FTAs so we can drink far more of their chardonnay ? without the EU?s 32 per cent tariff. Good news for British consumers, a sobering message to the French who will face stiffer competition for their share of the UK wine market. Will they really want their politicians to squeeze them further by pressing, out of pique, for more barriers to trade with the UK? On their way home, those British trade emissaries might stop off in Japan, the fifth biggest exporter of cars to the UK, to explain that we?d like to buy more of their Mazdas ? shorn of the EU?s 10 per cent tariff on cars. Continental carmakers, used to a protected slice of the UK market, will take note. German manufacturers will have no truck with erecting trade barriers against Britain, which would cost German jobs. Mr Davis and his team should tour the continental business groups and trade fairs and meet union leaders to extol the virtues of European trade, explain Britain?s global strategy and make the case against beggar-thy-neighbour tariffs that would hit their members hardest. Of course Britain?s new global trade strategy is about more than buying cheaper goods from abroad. It?s also a golden opportunity to sell more planes, cars and pharmaceuticals to the growth markets of the future. The City will have the chance to sell more UK financial services worldwide in markets long neglected under EU trade deals. Scotland can build on its mercantilist tradition, selling more oil and whisky to markets from Latin America to Asia. Beefing up international trade will help to address low productivity, one of the systemic weaknesses of the British economy, by incentivising exports and strengthening competitiveness at home. The dynamic linking Britain?s openness to trade and our potential to boost exports is powerful. The more we dismantle the barriers that the EU imposes on imports into the UK, the more nations around the world will lower their barriers to our trade. That, in turn, will heap pressure on our EU partners to safeguard their businesses and jobs by resisting calls for tariffs on British goods. This is Brexit?s virtuous circle. Britain?s strategy must be to increase the international and domestic pressures on the EU politicians sitting across the negotiating table. With elections in Germany and France in 2017, French farmers and the powerful German business lobby will have something to say about politicians threatening their livelihoods and workers with vindictive protectionist gestures aimed at Britain. UNQUOTE

JoeLeg Wrote: > > > > > Next time you go to Gatwick and transfer betwen > > terminals , you will get on a driverless train. > > There are countless other mass transit system > > around the world that are automated. It's not > > rocket science. > > > > That's true, so why haven't we switched to it? > What is the difference between the DLR and > Southern, for example? > > > The organ grinder's assistant could even do it. > > So why don't Southern do this? > > GG > > If I seem shirty about your short-sighted > suggestion, it's because I don't think it's > helpful to suggest that wholesale termination of > the workforce, coupled with an assumption that the > job is easy, is going to solve this. I would have > no problem with Southern adopting a total change > of staff of it would solve the issues, but there's > more to it than this, not least of which is the > incompetence of Southern management. It isn't all > on the drivers. Sorry but it's the Union showing Luddite behaviour. You say it is incompetence by management. In what way? Management want to have a more efficient and cost effective service. Just like the London Underground with drivers getting more than ?45,000 pa as a result of union blackmail. They also blackmailed TFL over late night tube running. Also tibe drivers can only be recruited from existing underground staff ie no outsiders! If that isn't restrictive practices then whatevre is? Here again they should be offered new contracts and if they dont like it then tough. Even an adolescent monkey with one limb could drive a tube train. It is virually all automated. Crikey, Google and others have developed driverless cars and that infinately more difficult to achieve than running a train on rails. Let's move with the times. What would it be like today if the original Luddites held sway? GG A classic case where they should be offered new con

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JoeLeg Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Green Goose Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Will the Luddites never learn? > > > > > > > > Ronald Regan sacked all the air trafic > > > controllers > > > > (ATC's)when they started getting Bolshie. > He > > > was > > > > able to get replacements from the military > > and > > > > elsewhere and all was running smoothly > within > > a > > > > week! The original ATC's were never > employed > > at > > > > control centers ever again. Real Luddites. > > > > > > > > Train drivers and conductors are > infinitately > > > more > > > > dispensible than ATCs. > > > > > > > > Problem solved. > > > > > > > > GG > > > > > > So you suggest that Southern Rail requisition > > > military personnel (and others) to replace > > train > > > drivers and conductors? > > > > > > Well, for starters Reagan was > > commander-in-chief > > > and could do what he damn well pleased. > > Southern > > > Rail don't appear able to get trains to run. > > > Also, Southern don't have any right to > > > requestition military personnel (can't > believe > > you > > > even need this pointed out to you), only the > > > government can, and the military is > > > somewhat...overstretched right now. > > > > > > Of course the government can, if the > government > > > wants to take it over. But that's tantamount > to > > > admitting that privatisation has failed so I > > doubt > > > that's happening. > > > > > > Any more bright ideas? > > > > C'mon JoeLeg, I said Regan got ATC's "from > > military and elsewhere" IRPT "elsewhere". Also > I > > didnt say Southern should/could use military. > > Driving a train is a far far stretch from being > an > > ATC. > > > > There are heaps of people who could drive a > train > > with very little training. For example heavt > truck > > drivers could do it in a matter of hours. > Driving > > an HGV is much more demanding than driving a > train > > where everything is covered by safety measures. > > Apart from opening the doors all the driver > does > > is hold the "dead nman's" handle. > > All the signals are interlocked and the train > > cannot pass a red unless the driver overrides > it. > > > > Next time you go to Gatwick and transfer betwen > > terminals , you will get on a driverless train. > > There are countless other mass transit system > > around the world that are automated. It's not > > rocket science. > > > > The organ grinder's assistant could even do it. > > GG > > > It's relatively easy (for engineers) to automate > mass transit, it runs at a maximum 40mph or so, > there's only one line in each direction and a few > minutes between each stop. That's why the > Central, Victoria and DLR lines are automated (and > maybe more). > > > When you get to automating mainline trains, the > complexity of junctions, higher speeds (Brighton > mainline is 100mph in places), and heavier trains > with more intense weather conditions, means that > the cost is currently prohibitive. > > It takes 9 -12 months to a year to train (excuse > the pun) a train driver. > > Driving a 480 tonne train with 1000 humans on > board at close to 100mph is not the same as > driving a 40 tonne HGV limited to 50mph. More than a little exageration there, Lowlander! Your average 4 car southern train weighs 136 tons and carries about 300 passengers. The average speed is less than 30mph. Here we are not talking HS intercity express trains but simple, slow units. A typical run would be Croydon to London Bridge. Slow, simple and nothing complicated. The organ grinder's assistant could do it if he was given a banana! Trust me, driving an HGV is MUCH more difficult. Any Truckie could learn it in a few hours.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Will the Luddites never learn? > > > > Ronald Regan sacked all the air trafic > controllers > > (ATC's)when they started getting Bolshie. He > was > > able to get replacements from the military and > > elsewhere and all was running smoothly within a > > week! The original ATC's were never employed at > > control centers ever again. Real Luddites. > > > > Train drivers and conductors are infinitately > more > > dispensible than ATCs. > > > > Problem solved. > > > > GG > > So you suggest that Southern Rail requisition > military personnel (and others) to replace train > drivers and conductors? > > Well, for starters Reagan was commander-in-chief > and could do what he damn well pleased. Southern > Rail don't appear able to get trains to run. > Also, Southern don't have any right to > requestition military personnel (can't believe you > even need this pointed out to you), only the > government can, and the military is > somewhat...overstretched right now. > > Of course the government can, if the government > wants to take it over. But that's tantamount to > admitting that privatisation has failed so I doubt > that's happening. > > Any more bright ideas? C'mon JoeLeg, I said Regan got ATC's "from military and elsewhere" IRPT "elsewhere". Also I didnt say Southern should/could use military. Driving a train is a far far stretch from being an ATC. There are heaps of people who could drive a train with very little training. For example heavt truck drivers could do it in a matter of hours. Driving an HGV is much more demanding than driving a train where everything is covered by safety measures. Apart from opening the doors all the driver does is hold the "dead nman's" handle. All the signals are interlocked and the train cannot pass a red unless the driver overrides it. Next time you go to Gatwick and transfer betwen terminals , you will get on a driverless train. There are countless other mass transit system around the world that are automated. It's not rocket science. The organ grinder's assistant could even do it. GG

Will the Luddites never learn? Ronald Regan sacked all the air trafic controllers (ATC's)when they started getting Bolshie. He was able to get replacements from the military and elsewhere and all was running smoothly within a week! The original ATC's were never employed at control centers ever again. Real Luddites. Train drivers and conductors are infinitately more dispensible than ATCs. Problem solved. GG

A couple of posts here suggest that my stance on negotiating is extreme and aggressive, but I have negotiated with Arabs, Israelis, French, Africans and Russians. They all have diffrent styles. I suggest my detractors visit various web sites dealing with the Theory of Negotiation. I found the Israelis were the most intransigent. The French were the most aggressive and intimidating. The Arabls would always throw up another demand just when you thought everything had been agreed. The Russians would start out with a list of demands headed by several outrageous demands which they slowly concede. This works by softening up the other side so that all other demands appear reasonable. I think the British are the only ones whose default strategy is the mutual win-win or meet-in-the-middle approach. By comparison with the other styles, it is relatively unproductive with a high probability of under-achievement. By all means let the other side think they have a "win" but their perceived "win" is only as good as the other side has made it appear. Having said that, have a look at the "Blackmailer Paradox". To save time I will let you have it here..... .................................................................................... Reuben and Shimon are placed into a small room with a suitcase containing $100,000 of cash. The owner of the suitcase offers them the following: "I'll give you all the money in the suitcase, but only on the condition that you negotiate and reach an amicable agreement on its division. That?s the only way I will give you the money. " Reuben, who is a rational person, appreciates the golden opportunity presented to him and turns to Shimon with the obvious suggestion: "Come, you take half the amount, I'll take the other half, and each of us will go away with $50,000." To his surprise, Shimon, with a serious look on his face and a determined voice says: "Listen, I do not know what your intentions are with the money, but I'm not leaving this room with less than $90,000. Take it or leave it. I?m fully prepared to go home with nothing." Reuben can not believe his ears. What happened to Shimon? he thinks to himself. Why should he get 90%, and I only 10%? He decides to try to talk to Shimon. "Come, be reasonable," he pleads. "We're both in this together, and we both want the money. Come let?s share the amount equally and we?ll both come out ahead.? But the reasoned explanation of his friend does not seem to register on Shimon. He listens attentively to Reuben?s words, but then declares even more emphatically, "There is nothing to discuss. 90-10 or nothing, that's my final offer!" Reuben's face turns red with anger. He wants to smack Shimon across his face, but soon reconsiders. He realizes that Shimon is determined to leave with the majority of the money, and that the only way for him to leave the room with any money is to surrender to Shimon?s blackmail. He straightens his clothes, pulls out a wad of bills from the suitcase in the amount of $10,000, shakes hands with Shimon and leaves the room looking forlorn. This case in Game Theory is called the ?Blackmailer Paradox." The paradox emerging from this case is that the rational Reuben is eventually forced to act clearly irrationally, in order to gain the maximum available to him. The logic behind this bizarre result is that Shimon broadcast total faith and confidence in his excessive demands, and he is able to convince Reuben to yield to his blackmail in order for him to receive the minimum benefit. ............................................................. I welcome comments. GG