Wind saving our bacon again

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

Who'd have thunk it. And at the height of summer too?

"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom

"Summer

High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long
warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions

So not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater

but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who knows fuck
all
about meteorology either.

michael adams

...

.

Tim Streater

2015-06-20 11:56:40 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

Who'd have thunk it. And at the height of summer too?
"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
"Summer
High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to
long warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/wea
ther-conditions
So not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater

and these attributes are relevant how, precisely?

Post by michael adams
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who
knows fuck all about meteorology either.

Gosh, so reading a couple of lines from Winky makes one a meteorology
expert, eh? Noting that either weather condition can occur at either
end of the year, and often do. And that a high in winter will not only
mean no wind, but no solar either.

Full marks for missing the point, which is that wind is not the panacea
that it is made out to be in certain quarters.

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

michael adams

2015-06-20 14:47:49 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Full marks for missing the point, which is that wind is not the panacea
that it is made out to be in certain quarters.

And full marks to you for missing the point. That there are far easier
ways of demonstrating that, than posting highly selective data which
can be shot down by reference to two web pages.

And in answer to your earlier question. Having sweaty right wing polemists
such as Andrew Neil presenting your case using what is clearly highly
selective evidence is hardly the way to win any argument based
on a dispassionate appraisal of the facts.

The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC
But once having been given the bum's rush by Murdoch he's
more than happy to take the BBC shilling funded by that self
same licence fee. Basically he'll change his tune to suit his
pocket.

michael adams

...

2015-06-20 15:11:53 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

michael adams

2015-06-20 20:06:58 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

Its not what I believe that matters.

<quote>

"He [Andrew Neil] has previously been extremely critical of the BBC
- as a former chairman of BSkyB, he insisted the BBC should be shrunk
to one TV network and three radio channels.

He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'.

</quote>

http://www.theguardian.com/media/1999/may/10/bbc

Of course that was then. The only reason Brillo had to come crawling
back to the 'the last unreformed nationalised industry" here in the
UK, with his tail between his legs, was because Murdoch gave
him his chance with his own current affairs TV show in the US,
it bombed, and basically Murdoch showed him the door. That's
how Rupe shows his gratitude to those who've bent to his
will for years. Having swallowed all the transtlantic bollockings
and silences on the phone, and put money in his pocket.

The very thought of it makes your heart bleed, it really does.

michael adams

...

The Natural Philosopher

2015-06-20 21:06:49 UTC

Post by michael adams
The only reason Brillo had to come crawling
back to the 'the last unreformed nationalised industry" here in the
UK, with his tail between his legs, was because Murdoch gave
him his chance with his own current affairs TV show in the US,
it bombed, and basically Murdoch showed him the door.

Don't tell me, the only reason you are so twitter and bisted is that you
used to be his rent boy..

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams

2015-06-20 21:54:56 UTC

Don't tell me, the only reason you are so twitter and bisted is that you used to be his
rent boy..

Nope. That must have been somebody else you saw on the way out.

And even though it wasn't me, I do hope the two of you didn't fall out
over it.

michael adams

...

2015-06-21 10:57:36 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

Which, even if it were to come about, would not be your predicted *end*
of the BBC.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

michael adams

2015-06-21 11:36:05 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

Which, even if it were to come about, would not be your predicted *end* of the BBC.

But you left out a bit, didn't you ?

"He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'."

So who is going to want to pay a Licence Fee for only one TV channel
which only broadcasts news ? When news is freely avaible on other
channels ?

So no Licence Fee.

What advertiser is going to want to advertise in a channel which only
broadcasts news ? When there are plenty of more popular channels
broadcasting far more popular programmes both on ITV and SkY.
As existed at the time.

So no advertising either.

Who is going to want to subscribe to a channel which only
broadcasts news ? Given the ready availability of news on
other channels so that that the subscription income will
probably only run to a desk and a studio and no foreign
reporting at all.

So no subsription income either.

Now perhaps you'd care to explain how, if Brillo had had his
way at the time, the BBC would have been in a position
to pay for itself. Where would the money have come from ?

Such that it would still be in existence today so as to provide
Brillo with steady employment.

michael adams

...

Big Les Wade

2015-06-21 16:47:43 UTC

Post by michael adams
"He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'."
So who is going to want to pay a Licence Fee for only one TV channel
which only broadcasts news ? When news is freely avaible on other
channels ?
So no Licence Fee.
What advertiser is going to want to advertise in a channel which only
broadcasts news ? When there are plenty of more popular channels
broadcasting far more popular programmes both on ITV and SkY.
As existed at the time.
So no advertising either.
Who is going to want to subscribe to a channel which only
broadcasts news ? Given the ready availability of news on
other channels so that that the subscription income will
probably only run to a desk and a studio and no foreign
reporting at all.
So no subsription income either.
Now perhaps you'd care to explain how, if Brillo had had his
way at the time, the BBC would have been in a position
to pay for itself. Where would the money have come from ?

Such a trimmed-down BBC would cost little to run and could be funded out
of general taxation.

In fact, I wouldn't even let it broadcast news.

--
Les

2015-06-21 21:05:50 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

Which, even if it were to come about, would not be your predicted *end* of the BBC.

But you left out a bit, didn't you ?
"He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'."
So who is going to want to pay a Licence Fee for only one TV channel
which only broadcasts news ? When news is freely avaible on other
channels ?
So no Licence Fee.
What advertiser is going to want to advertise in a channel which only
broadcasts news ? When there are plenty of more popular channels
broadcasting far more popular programmes both on ITV and SkY.
As existed at the time.
So no advertising either.
Who is going to want to subscribe to a channel which only
broadcasts news ? Given the ready availability of news on
other channels so that that the subscription income will
probably only run to a desk and a studio and no foreign
reporting at all.
So no subsription income either.
Now perhaps you'd care to explain how, if Brillo had had his
way at the time, the BBC would have been in a position
to pay for itself. Where would the money have come from ?
Such that it would still be in existence today so as to provide
Brillo with steady employment.
michael adams

Even with all that exaggerated doom and despondency, the BBC wouldn't
necessarily come to an end as you surmise.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

michael adams

2015-06-21 21:39:41 UTC

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC

You really believe that the one would follow the other?

Which, even if it were to come about, would not be your predicted *end* of the BBC.

But you left out a bit, didn't you ?
"He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'."
So who is going to want to pay a Licence Fee for only one TV channel
which only broadcasts news ? When news is freely avaible on other
channels ?
So no Licence Fee.
What advertiser is going to want to advertise in a channel which only
broadcasts news ? When there are plenty of more popular channels
broadcasting far more popular programmes both on ITV and SkY.
As existed at the time.
So no advertising either.
Who is going to want to subscribe to a channel which only
broadcasts news ? Given the ready availability of news on
other channels so that that the subscription income will
probably only run to a desk and a studio and no foreign
reporting at all.
So no subsription income either.
Now perhaps you'd care to explain how, if Brillo had had his
way at the time, the BBC would have been in a position
to pay for itself. Where would the money have come from ?
Such that it would still be in existence today so as to provide
Brillo with steady employment.
michael adams

Even with all that exaggerated doom and despondency, the BBC wouldn't necessarily come
to an end as you surmise.

It's not exaggerated doom and despondency at all. I took the trouble
to lay out the three funding options for you.

So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

michael adams

...

2015-06-22 09:43:06 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.

Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational
dislike of Andrew Neil rather than anything else so there's little point
in continuing with this.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

Tim Streater

2015-06-22 14:02:25 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational
dislike of Andrew Neil rather than anything else so there's little point
in continuing with this.

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to. I should have realised sooner.

--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

michael adams

2015-06-22 15:28:52 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike of Andrew
Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in continuing with this.

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to. I should have realised sooner.

No Tim it was me who should have realised sooner that somebody who
actually names his source, for one single quoted wind reading at that, as
though the identity of the source made any difference at all, hasn't really
got a clue what he's talking about.

You see Tim the calculations have already been done.

Here's the headline Tim because I imagine you're not much of a one for
detail - unless of course they're from a TV celebrity such as Andrew Neil

"Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power"

It's all there on the link for you, compiled by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institute

Its shows that hydro, if available, a big if, is cheapest followed by nuclear as the
cheapest way to a LC future.

Wind power or lack of it is already factored in. The calculations have already been
done. So what earthly purpose is served by Andrew Neil quoting a single days wind
reading, or more to the point you starting a thread about his doing so ?

What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

michael adams

...

michael adams

2015-06-22 15:32:54 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike of Andrew
Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in continuing with this.

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to. I should have realised sooner.

No Tim it was me who should have realised sooner that somebody who
actually names his source, for one single quoted wind reading at that, as
though the identity of the source made any difference at all, hasn't really
got a clue what he's talking about.

You see Tim the calculations have already been done.

Here's the headline Tim because I imagine you're not much of a one for
detail - unless of course they're from a TV celebrity such as Andrew Neil

"Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power"

It's all there on the link for you, compiled by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institute
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/05/20-low-carbon-wind-solar-power-frank

Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power
Its shows that hydro, if available, a big if, is cheapest followed by nuclear as the
cheapest way to a LC future.

Wind power or lack of it is already factored in. The calculations have already been
done. So what earthly purpose is served by Andrew Neil quoting a single days wind
reading, or more to the point you starting a thread about his doing so ?

What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

michael adams

...

Vir Campestris

2015-06-22 20:57:27 UTC

Post by michael adams
What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

I seem to have this twice.

We know why they're mothballing them. Japan lost a plant to a tsunami
that killed thousand of people, of which <insert number> were killed by
the resulting meltdown.

Germany has obviously decided there's a risk of a tsunami in the
Schwarzwald and they are shutting theirs down too. And thus going over
to brown coal. So the fear of nuclear power is wrecking the planet.

And that number I left out? It's zero.

Andy

michael adams

2015-06-22 23:04:29 UTC

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by michael adams
What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

I seem to have this twice.
We know why they're mothballing them. Japan lost a plant to a tsunami that killed
thousand of people, of which <insert number> were killed by the resulting meltdown.
Germany has obviously decided there's a risk of a tsunami in the Schwarzwald and they
are shutting theirs down too. And thus going over to brown coal. So the fear of nuclear
power is wrecking the planet.
And that number I left out? It's zero.
Andy

There's a quite well known saying in the news media - "if it scares
it airs".
It seems the public much prefer watching or reading scare
stories about spectacular risks with a very low probability - the
threat of a terrorist attack or a nuclear meltdown, than they do
about everyday boring risks with a much higher probability such as
heart attacks or clinical obesity. And so they greatly exaggerate
the risk of the former in their mind, with the encouragement of
the news media, while playing down or even ignoring the latter
entirely

michael adams

...

Tim Streater

2015-06-22 15:42:07 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike
of Andrew Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in
continuing with his.

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to. I should have realised sooner.

No Tim it was me who should have realised sooner that somebody who
actually names his source, for one single quoted wind reading at that, as
though the identity of the source made any difference at all, hasn't really
got a clue what he's talking about.
You see Tim the calculations have already been done.
Here's the headline Tim because I imagine you're not much of a one for
detail - unless of course they're from a TV celebrity such as Andrew Neil
"Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power"
It's all there on the link for you, compiled by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institute
Its shows that hydro, if available, a big if, is cheapest followed by nuclear
as the cheapest way to a LC future.
Wind power or lack of it is already factored in. The calculations have already
been done. So what earthly purpose is served by Andrew Neil quoting a single
days wind reading, or more to the point you starting a thread about his doing
so ?
What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

You may (apparently) know this. I know this. Plenty of people on this
ng know this. But there's plenty more who don't, and I imagine most of
them are not on this ng. There's also plenty who ignore this for their
own selfish political and commercial reasons - there's money to be made
from them thar subsidies, after all.

Therefore, if someone [1] who has access to the broadcast media looks
like he may know it too, and is moreover someone who is in a position
to press politicians of all flavours on the matter in his own programme
on the box, then I view it as positive if said person might be a bit
skeptical about all the claims made for wind. Rare and refreshing, I
would say.

[1] And I don't care an FF about your pissy and childish views of AN,
either.

--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

michael adams

2015-06-22 16:20:33 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike
of Andrew Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in
continuing with his.

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to. I should have realised sooner.

No Tim it was me who should have realised sooner that somebody who
actually names his source, for one single quoted wind reading at that, as
though the identity of the source made any difference at all, hasn't really
got a clue what he's talking about.
You see Tim the calculations have already been done.
Here's the headline Tim because I imagine you're not much of a one for
detail - unless of course they're from a TV celebrity such as Andrew Neil
"Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power"
It's all there on the link for you, compiled by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institute
Its shows that hydro, if available, a big if, is cheapest followed by nuclear
as the cheapest way to a LC future.
Wind power or lack of it is already factored in. The calculations have already
been done. So what earthly purpose is served by Andrew Neil quoting a single
days wind reading, or more to the point you starting a thread about his doing
so ?
What Andrew Neil and yourself should be concerning yourselves about is,
why despite all the obvious economic benefits, Germany and Japan
are mothballing nuclear capacity.

You may (apparently) know this. I know this. Plenty of people on this
ng know this. But there's plenty more who don't, and I imagine most of
them are not on this ng. There's also plenty who ignore this for their
own selfish political and commercial reasons - there's money to be made
from them thar subsidies, after all.
Therefore, if someone [1] who has access to the broadcast media looks
like he may know it too, and is moreover someone who is in a position
to press politicians of all flavours on the matter in his own programme
on the box, then I view it as positive if said person might be a bit
skeptical about all the claims made for wind. Rare and refreshing, I
would say.

No it just turns into a divisive shouting match between mistaken proponents
of wind power who are never going to back down when hangued by a combetant
person like Andrew Neil, and Andrew Neil. It's just TV Same as "Question
Time". Its all a performance. The only thing that happen is that a bad TV
performance can certainly harm a politicians career. But that's becaue
they're bad TV performers, not because their policies are wrong.

Post by Tim Streater
[1] And I don't care an FF about your pissy and childish views of AN,
either.

There you go again. It seems that I happen to know rather more about Andrew
Nei than you do, or ever did. If you did so you wouldn't describe my views as
either pissy or childish. But acknowledge that they're based on actual evidence

In so doing, all you're achieving is displaying your own ignorance of the man.

And it is relevant Tim because it was you who introduced Andrew Neil
into this discussion. Nobody else.

Unless of course you're fully supportive of him in his neglect of Mordecai
Venunu. Basically the man lacks judgement. End of.

It really is as simple as that Tim. Andrew Neil is a divisive figure and is the
last person anyone would want as a visible spokesmnan for their cause

Which was my original point which appears to have flown straight over
the top of your head.

Anyway that's it.

michael adams

...

michael adams

2015-06-22 15:28:59 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike of Andrew
Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in continuing with this.

There's no point in continuing with it because

a) you realise that you're wrong, that you can't explain how the BBC
would have been funded under Neils proposals, but you haven't got
the guts to admit as much

or

b) you don't understand the issue

after I've taken the trouble to explain it to you.

michael adams

...

Tim Streater

2015-06-22 15:43:22 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike of Andrew
Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in continuing with this.

There's no point in continuing with it because
a) you realise that you're wrong, that you can't explain how the BBC
would have been funded under Neils proposals, but you haven't got
the guts to admit as much
or
b) you don't understand the issue
after I've taken the trouble to explain it to you.

Nobody is going to do that because it has nothing to do with the point
at issue. Nobody asked you about that, see.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

michael adams

2015-06-22 15:57:30 UTC

Post by michael adams
So would you care to explain where the BBC would have got its money
from if Brillos ideas had been implemented back in 1999, if not by
those means ?

Your 'So no...' are not necessarily true.
Your whole diatribe seems to be based on an intense and irrational dislike
of Andrew Neil rather than anything else so there's little point in continuing with
this.

There's no point in continuing with it because
a) you realise that you're wrong, that you can't explain how the BBC
would have been funded under Neils proposals, but you haven't got
the guts to admit as much
or
b) you don't understand the issue
after I've taken the trouble to explain it to you.

Nobody is going to do that because it has nothing to do with the point
at issue. Nobody asked you about that, see.

Oh really ?

So what are these posts about then ?

Post by Tim Streater
Which, even if it were to come about, would not be your predicted *end* of the BBC.
--
F

"F" <***@nowhere> wrote in message news:***@brightview.co.uk...

Even with all that exaggerated doom and despondency, the BBC wouldn't
necessarily come to an end as you surmise.

--
F

michael adams

...

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-21 11:49:29 UTC

Post by michael adams
"He [Andrew Neil] has previously been extremely critical of the BBC
- as a former chairman of BSkyB, he insisted the BBC should be shrunk
to one TV network and three radio channels.
He also believed that the BBC should only broadcast public service
programming and not stray into commercial areas such as entertainment,
or sport. He described the BBC as 'the last unreformed nationalised
industry'.

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

After all, wouldn't do for a few shareholders not to make a profit out of
everything.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tim Streater

2015-06-21 12:01:24 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

There aren't any successful ones to speak of. Those that are (as
measured by some criterion or other) are costing too much. Thing about
private (actually public, if they have shareholders) companies is that
they can be regulated and taxed.

Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever,
and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel.
I want to know what the evidence shows." -- Richard Dawkins

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-21 13:29:15 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

Very difficult to say with the BBC and other broadcasters.

--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-21 13:32:56 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.
Probably not even allowed to buy a new pencil without permission in
triplicate from some government official.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Richard

2015-06-21 17:12:55 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

Most British businesses have useless management. The nationalised stuff
excels at wastage.

Tim Streater

2015-06-21 18:19:09 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

Precisely my point. The government is not designed to be able to run
things efficiently.

--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR

John Chance

2015-06-21 20:50:19 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

Precisely my point. The government is not designed to be able to run
things efficiently.

But does some things better than non government can do, most
obviously with the cops, schools, roads, airports, ports, BBC etc.

Rod Speed

2015-06-21 19:51:16 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do what
makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route wise.

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-22 10:38:57 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do what
makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route wise.

So nothing whatsoever do do with the ownership of the company.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rod Speed

2015-06-22 11:05:01 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do what
makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route wise.

So nothing whatsoever do do with the ownership of the company.

Everything to do with the ownership of the company because
it’s the owners that decide what routes they have serve, fuckwit.

Tim Streater

2015-06-22 14:03:43 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do what
makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route wise.

So nothing whatsoever do do with the ownership of the company.

What part of " ... because as a nationalised operation, they have to do
what ... " was too hard for you to understand.

Hint: even Woddles must get something right sometime.

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-22 15:29:14 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do
what makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route
wise.

So nothing whatsoever do do with the ownership of the company.

What part of " ... because as a nationalised operation, they have to do
what ... " was too hard for you to understand.

Either a transport company of any sort - planes trains or buses - is
required to cover certain routes or it's not.

Make no difference if it's in private hands or nationalised.

Post by Tim Streater
Hint: even Woddles must get something right sometime.

You don't understand the principle of moving goalposts around to achieve
the result you want, then?

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rod Speed

2015-06-22 21:59:15 UTC

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If British Airways wasn't successful when a nationalised company, it
simply means they had the usual useless management team in charge.

It's actually because as a nationalised operation, they have to do what
makes no sense at all for a commercial operation to do route wise.

So nothing whatsoever do do with the ownership of the company.

What part of " ... because as a nationalised operation, they
have to do what ... " was too hard for you to understand.

Either a transport company of any sort - planes trains
or buses - is required to cover certain routes or it's not.

None of the non nationalised airlines were ever required
to cover certain routes, they got to decide for themselves
what routes might be profitable or not.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Make no difference if it's in private hands or nationalised.

Wrong, as always.

Post by Tim Streater
Hint: even Woddles must get something right sometime.

You don't understand the principle of moving goalposts
around to achieve the result you want, then?

There are no goalposts and nothing ever moved.

You just flaunted your complete pig ignorance
of how the airline industry works.

Edgar Iredale

2015-06-24 21:22:55 UTC

Post by Rod Speed
None of the non nationalised airlines were ever required
to cover certain routes, they got to decide for themselves
what routes might be profitable or not.

Yes they were. They were flag carriers - BOAC, BEA and BSAA. The government
instructed them on routes and schedules.
On top of that they were told what 'planes to buy. Sometimes to support
British industry and sometimes to cope with the unusual characteristics of
their routes.
And to add insult to injury they couldn't write off a loss. Any operating
losses were added to their debt to the government. (As Corporations they
borrowed money from the Government rather than sold shares. No chance to say
"Reduced or No dividend this year.")

Edgar

2015-06-25 01:21:37 UTC

Post by Edgar Iredale

Post by Rod Speed
None of the non nationalised airlines were ever required
to cover certain routes, they got to decide for themselves
what routes might be profitable or not.

You're typing to a dumbfuck.

Rod Speed

2015-06-25 05:13:17 UTC

Post by Edgar Iredale

Post by Rod Speed
None of the non nationalised airlines were ever required
to cover certain routes, they got to decide for themselves
what routes might be profitable or not.

Yes they were. They were flag carriers - BOAC, BEA and BSAA.

Those were all state owned.

Post by Edgar Iredale
The government instructed them on routes and schedules.

What I said.

Post by Edgar Iredale
On top of that they were told what 'planes to buy.

Hardly surprising given they were state owned.

Post by Edgar Iredale
Sometimes to support British industry and sometimes
to cope with the unusual characteristics of their routes.
And to add insult to injury they couldn't write off a loss. Any operating
losses were added to their debt to the government. (As Corporations
they borrowed money from the Government rather than sold shares.
No chance to say "Reduced or No dividend this year.")

John Chance

2015-06-21 19:32:53 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

There aren't any successful ones to speak of.

There are actually, the schools, cops, universities,
airports, ports, roads, the NHS, BBC etc etc etc.

Those that are (as

Post by Tim Streater
measured by some criterion or other) are costing too much.

Have fun listing any of the schools, cops, universities, airports,
ports, roads, the NHS, BBC that cost less and do as much.

Thing about

Post by Tim Streater
private (actually public, if they have shareholders) companies is that
they can be regulated and taxed.

So can government operations tho there isn't any point in taxing those.

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?

Yes, there are certainly some things that are better not done by
government. Car manufacturing is another obvious example.

But it isn't true of Airbus for example.

Post by Tim Streater
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

But that isn't a viable approach with the schools, cops,
universities, airports, ports, roads, the NHS, BBC etc etc etc.

It was with the bulk of council housing.

RJH

2015-06-22 14:48:09 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

There aren't any successful ones to speak of. Those that are (as
measured by some criterion or other) are costing too much.

Why are they costing too much? Start with central government imposed
tiers of 'performance management', chasing ridiculous targets, and
contracting out (competitive tendering etc). There is nothing
intrinsically expensive about state owned services.

Post by Tim Streater
Thing about
private (actually public, if they have shareholders) companies is that
they can be regulated and taxed.

Like the banks, then? Good luck with that ;-)

Post by Tim Streater
Why should government own British Airways and have to subsidise it?
Answer was to sell it off (thus getting dosh), and tax the successful
business it then became (more dosh).

Pay the capital to build it up and run it and sell it at a loss more
like. Although I'd concede BA was a bit of an odd industry to
nationalise. And I think we all know about how the tax system doesn't
work. Why is aviation fuel not fully taxed?

--
Cheers, Rob

Tim Streater

2015-06-22 15:29:56 UTC

Post by RJH

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

There aren't any successful ones to speak of. Those that are (as
measured by some criterion or other) are costing too much.

Well there is, because governments appear unable to run things. Nothing
wrong in principle with contracting out, either: d'ye think car
companies make all their components? No, they contract out and know how
to do it, too (except Jaguar around 1980, when they stopped doing their
own quality control and allowed the suppliers to do it).

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
Thing about private (actually public, if they have shareholders)
companies is that they can be regulated and taxed.

Like the banks, then? Good luck with that ;-)

Blame Gordon Brown for the regulation part. Meanwhile, they are being
taxed in case you hadn't noticed.

Interesting article in the Times today, based on memoirs of one Roger
Mosey, former Today Editor, Controller of R5Live and Head of TV News.
He said BBC editors of news, while not party political, were too prone
to groupthink. Some editors, f'rinstance, "thought that the correct
positioning for a pope would be to be pro women-priests, pro
gay-rights, and generally the kind of agreeable liberal who would be at
home in a north London CofE parish. The idea that the cardinals might
elect a traditional Catholic like Ratzinger came as a bit of a blow."

A bit like all those socialists on social media then, who were just
talking to each other and so thought a Labour victory this year as
inevitable.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

John Chance

2015-06-22 22:07:03 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.

There aren't any successful ones to speak of. Those that are (as
measured by some criterion or other) are costing too much.

Why are they costing too much? Start with central government imposed tiers
of 'performance management', chasing ridiculous targets, and contracting
out (competitive tendering etc). There is nothing intrinsically expensive
about state owned services.

Well there is, because governments appear unable to run things.

How odd that they appear to be able to run all of the roads, cops, legal
system, schools, military, universities, NHS, BBC etc quite adequately.

Nothing

Post by Tim Streater
wrong in principle with contracting out, either: d'ye think car
companies make all their components? No, they contract out and know how
to do it, too (except Jaguar around 1980, when they stopped doing their
own quality control and allowed the suppliers to do it).

Post by Tim Streater
Thing about private (actually public, if they have shareholders)
companies is that they can be regulated and taxed.

Like the banks, then? Good luck with that ;-)

Of course nothing like that ever happens with
newspapers or non government media, eh ?

Some editors, f'rinstance, "thought that the correct

Post by Tim Streater
positioning for a pope would be to be pro women-priests, pro
gay-rights, and generally the kind of agreeable liberal who would be at
home in a north London CofE parish. The idea that the cardinals might
elect a traditional Catholic like Ratzinger came as a bit of a blow."

Of course nothing like that ever happens with
newspapers or non government media, eh ?

Post by Tim Streater
A bit like all those socialists on social media then, who were just
talking to each other and so thought a Labour victory this year as
inevitable.

And all those UKIPers who were convinced that UKIP
would get lots of MPs elected and in fact they halved
the number of MPs they had and couldn’t even get
Farage elected and had him pretend to quit and
pretend to be dragged back kicking and screaming
into UKIP again against his will. A Japanese would
at least have had the decency to disembowel himself.

Dave Plowman (News)

2015-06-22 15:38:51 UTC

Post by RJH
Why are they costing too much? Start with central government imposed
tiers of 'performance management', chasing ridiculous targets, and
contracting out (competitive tendering etc). There is nothing
intrinsically expensive about state owned services.

Governments also tend to control what a nationalised company does and what
it charges.

Sell it off with non of those constraints and surprise surprise it makes a
(bigger) profit. Even more so considering they were all sold at
considerable discount.

Thus proving to the single brain cells types on here that private
enterprise is always profitable, nationalised, not.

Very interesting that there was never enough cash to invest in state
industries properly.

But when banks fail miserably down entirely to their own mismanagement.
unlimited funds are available to bail them out.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rod Speed

2015-06-22 22:15:21 UTC

Post by RJH
Why are they costing too much? Start with central government
imposed tiers of 'performance management', chasing ridiculous
targets, and contracting out (competitive tendering etc). There
is nothing intrinsically expensive about state owned services.

Governments also tend to control what a nationalised company does

Yeah, like tell British Airways what routes they had to
fly even when they were clearly unprofitable to fly.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
and what it charges.

And when it isn't allowed to discount to attract
new customers like it did with British Airways.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Sell it off with non of those constraints and surprise
surprise it makes a (bigger) profit. Even more so
considering they were all sold at considerable discount.

Like with British Airways again.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Thus proving to the single brain cells types on here that
private enterprise is always profitable, nationalised, not.

And fools like you didn’t even notice what the government
imposed on British Airways while it was still nationalised.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Very interesting that there was never enough
cash to invest in state industries properly.

Doesn’t explain council houses prior to Thatcher.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But when banks fail miserably down entirely to their own mismanagement.

And allowed to do what they should never have been
allowed to do because that fool Brown deregulated them.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
unlimited funds are available to bail them out.

Because that is a lot cheaper than another Great Depression or worse.

Richard

2015-06-21 12:41:28 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.
After all, wouldn't do for a few shareholders not to make a profit out of
everything.

Absolutely typical of all left whingers. They believe that everyone else
should subsidise their agenda.

The Natural Philosopher

2015-06-22 20:47:23 UTC

Post by Richard

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.
After all, wouldn't do for a few shareholders not to make a profit out of
everything.

Absolutely typical of all left whingers. They believe that everyone else
should subsidise their agenda.

Exactly.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams

2015-06-21 13:04:35 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers. They don't believe in any form
of 'nationalised industry' and any successful ones must be made to fail.
After all, wouldn't do for a few shareholders not to make a profit out of
everything.

To be honest I'm not that bothered about any of the others myself.

While people who are forced to use the railways can speak
for themselves.

The point about the BBC is that if Neil had had his way, the
cultural life of this country such as it is would have been in
the hands of Murdoch and others with a vested interest in driving down
programming standards as far as possible. Basically there's no money
to be made from broadcasting minority programming to minority audiences.
Certainly if the viewing figures for BBC4 are any guide.

All the money is, in Neils own words "in commercial entertainment
and sport" so that's all anyone would get. With maybe the odd
token cultural slot featuring people who'd previously made a
name for themselves on terrestrial TV.

And while I'm not a big fan of them myself I can hardly see Rupert
Murdoch sponsoring the likes of the Proms - The Sky Promenade Concerts.

Unless they showed Pearl and Dean style advertising breaks on a big
screen behind the orchestra, in between movements, at least.

michael adams

...

stuart noble

2015-06-21 18:45:52 UTC

Post by michael adams
The point about the BBC is that if Neil had had his way, the
cultural life of this country such as it is would have been in
the hands of Murdoch and others with a vested interest in driving down
programming standards as far as possible. Basically there's no money
to be made from broadcasting minority programming to minority audiences.
Certainly if the viewing figures for BBC4 are any guide.

Odd that HBO and other US networks have left the BBC for dead when it
comes to drama. I have a sneaking suspicion it's the BBC driving down
standards.

michael adams

2015-06-21 19:36:25 UTC

Odd that HBO and other US networks have left the BBC for dead when it comes to drama. I
have a sneaking suspicion it's the BBC driving down standards.

AIUI anyway HBO is a subscription service. Along with others. The
networks ABC etc. are free to air but are loaded with commercials.

HBO have bigger home market for subscribers for a start, and anyway
there's more to TV than drama. Sport and documentaries for a start.
Some people may be happy watching endless documentaries about how
the US won world war II. Others maybe not. Thetas why they're
all on Freeview over here.

In the US HBO costs $192 p.a which works out at £120 and thats just
drama alone

The BBC costs £145.50. Just £25.50 more than HBO.

AIUI, the general perception is that overall with the exception
of one or two programmes, US Network TV is rubbish.

michael adams

...

Rod Speed

2015-06-21 20:55:39 UTC

Post by stuart noble

Odd that HBO and other US networks have left the BBC for dead when it
comes to drama.

I don’t buy that with Spooks alone.

Post by stuart noble
I have a sneaking suspicion it's the BBC driving down standards.

It clearly isn't with docos.

Rod Speed

2015-06-21 19:22:51 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers.

Yes, on that rabid bigotry.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They don't believe in any form of 'nationalised industry'

They do actually, most obviously with the cops, schools
and even the NHS with most of them. They are just too
stupid to realise that they are much more of an unreformed
nationalised industry than the BBC ever is turnover wise.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
and any successful ones must be made to fail.

They aren't into that with the roads, schools, airports, cops etc.

Charles Hope

2015-06-21 19:33:47 UTC

Absolutely typical of most right wingers.

Yes, on that rabid bigotry.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They don't believe in any form of 'nationalised industry'

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
and any successful ones must be made to fail.

They aren't into that with the roads, schools, airports, cops etc.

1. Haven't all the airports been privavtised?

2.They are trying to make the police fail by cutting their grants from
central government.

3/ Simialt with roads - potholes galore.

Rod Speed

2015-06-21 21:01:32 UTC

Post by Charles Hope

Absolutely typical of most right wingers.

Yes, on that rabid bigotry.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They don't believe in any form of 'nationalised industry'

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
and any successful ones must be made to fail.

They aren't into that with the roads, schools, airports, cops etc.

1. Haven't all the airports been privavtised?

The construction of new ones hasn’t been.

Post by Charles Hope
2.They are trying to make the police fail

Like hell they are.

Post by Charles Hope
by cutting their grants from central government.

That isn't the same thing as privatising them.

Post by Charles Hope
3/ Simialt with roads - potholes galore.

But fuck all of them have been privatised.

Tim Streater

2015-06-20 16:02:22 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Full marks for missing the point, which is that wind is not the panacea
that it is made out to be in certain quarters.

His sweatiness or otherwise is neither here nor there. And see my other
post.

Post by michael adams
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC
But once having been given the bum's rush by Murdoch he's
more than happy to take the BBC shilling funded by that self
same licence fee. Basically he'll change his tune to suit his
pocket.

This has nothing to do with anything under discussion, since AN is not
making an argument.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

michael adams

2015-06-20 18:38:23 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
So aside from the personal abuse of AN,
"Personal abuse" is abuse directed towards an individual.
My remarks about Brillo were not directed towrda him.

I still await your explanation as to their relevance.

...

The reason Brillo is an arsehole is because he claims that
publishing Moredchai Venunus revelations about Israels nuclear
weapons was his greatest scoop. But what he doesn't reveal is
that he was advised by more than one person that by publishing
Vanunus material he would most likely be condemning
him to death - a Mossad hit, or at the very best a long
term of imprisonment. More especially as Vanunu was
showing signs of being unstable.

Mossad aren't t mugs and the fact that the ST circulated
Vanunus material among independent "experts"
to check its veracity, made a leak inevitable.
Vanunu was tailed around London and lifted by
Mossad in Italy. To subsequently spend 11
years in soliary.

And all because Brillo so badly wanted his first big scoop
,
...

Post by Tim Streater
Unless of course either yourself or TNP happen to be Brillo
posting under a pseudonym.
TNP's abuse was directed at me.

Aw diddums.

I'm not interested in your sympathy, thanks all the same.

I was merely poiting out to you, the actual meaning of the term
"personal abuse" which you appear to be having some difficulty
with.

As I'm the only person who's been personnaly abused, I had to use
myself as an example. To clear up any remaining confusion
in your mind.

Post by Tim Streater
His sweatiness or otherwise is neither here nor there. And see my other
post.

...

Yes it is. He still glistens under the televison lights as it soaks its way
through the makeup. This type of distraction is simply one more reason
not to watch him on TV

Post by Tim Streater
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC
But once having been given the bum's rush by Murdoch he's
more than happy to take the BBC shilling funded by that self
same licence fee. Basically he'll change his tune to suit his
pocket.

This has nothing to do with anything under discussion, since AN is not
making an argument.

In being selective in what data he chooses to present, Brillo is instrumental
in putting forward a particulat point of view - in arguing a particular case.

michael adams

...

Post by Tim Streater
--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater

2015-06-20 21:59:05 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
So aside from the personal abuse of AN,
"Personal abuse" is abuse directed towards an individual.
My remarks about Brillo were not directed towrda him.

I still await your explanation as to their relevance.

...
The reason Brillo is an arsehole is because he claims that
publishing Moredchai Venunus revelations about Israels nuclear
weapons was his greatest scoop. But what he doesn't reveal is
that he was advised by more than one person that by publishing
Vanunus material he would most likely be condemning
him to death - a Mossad hit, or at the very best a long
term of imprisonment. More especially as Vanunu was
showing signs of being unstable.
Mossad aren't t mugs and the fact that the ST circulated
Vanunus material among independent "experts"
to check its veracity, made a leak inevitable.
Vanunu was tailed around London and lifted by
Mossad in Italy. To subsequently spend 11
years in soliary.
And all because Brillo so badly wanted his first big scoop

So - completely irrelevant non sequitur then.

Post by Tim Streater
Unless of course either yourself or TNP happen to be Brillo
posting under a pseudonym.
TNP's abuse was directed at me.

Aw diddums.

I'm not interested in your sympathy, thanks all the same.
I was merely poiting out to you, the actual meaning of the term
"personal abuse" which you appear to be having some difficulty
with.

If you'd been paying attention you'd be aware that I never said
anything about personal abuse.

Post by Tim Streater
His sweatiness or otherwise is neither here nor there. And see my other
post.

Yes it is. He still glistens under the televison lights as it soaks its way
through the makeup. This type of distraction is simply one more reason
not to watch him on TV

Bothers you does it - aw diddums.

Post by Tim Streater
This has nothing to do with anything under discussion, since AN is not
making an argument.

In being selective in what data he chooses to present, Brillo is instrumental
in putting forward a particulat point of view - in arguing a particular case.

He hasn't been selective as he hasn't put any data forward. He's merely
mentioned that today, there was next to no wind and that as a result,
the wind farms are generating next to no electricity.

OK - I am now bored with your twaddle. Byeeee.

--
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of
poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful,
authoritarian organisation to do it." - Vice-Pope Eric

michael adams

2015-06-20 22:17:45 UTC

Post by michael adams
Yes it is. He still glistens under the televison lights as it soaks its way
through the makeup. This type of distraction is simply one more reason
not to watch him on TV

Bothers you does it - aw diddums.

You singular lack of any sense humour does you proud, I must admit.

Post by Tim Streater
OK - I am now bored with your twaddle. Byeeee.

All got a bit too complicated for you, did it ?

"michael adams" <***@ukonline.co.k> wrote in message news:mm4buh$4jq$***@dont-email.me...

The only numbers that count are presumably the overall annual cost per kw
generated once capital costs and depretiation are taken into account along with
the capital costs and depreciation and idle time running costs of any standbye
sources of power which may be required to make up any shortfall. ,
Be that nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro or solar if available etc, As against the
overall annual cost per kw generated once capital costs and depreciation
are taken into account for coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and solar

If the numbers simply don't add up, then while wind remains x times more
expensive than any of the other available sources, then that's all
that needs pointing out.

Those are are the only numbers that matter in the end. Not anecdotal
evidence about wind vanes breaking off, towers collapsing altogether
or anything else. Or meaningless statistics concerning a single
days weather.

<quote>

Never mind, maybe Brillo has been tweeting again

michael adams

...

Farmer Giles

2015-06-20 17:32:33 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Full marks for missing the point, which is that wind is not the panacea
that it is made out to be in certain quarters.

And full marks to you for missing the point. That there are far easier
ways of demonstrating that, than posting highly selective data which
can be shot down by reference to two web pages.
And in answer to your earlier question. Having sweaty right wing polemists
such as Andrew Neil presenting your case using what is clearly highly
selective evidence is hardly the way to win any argument based
on a dispassionate appraisal of the facts.
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC
But once having been given the bum's rush by Murdoch he's
more than happy to take the BBC shilling funded by that self
same licence fee. Basically he'll change his tune to suit his
pocket.

Of course he will, he's a Scotsman - that's what they do. That's why
many of them sing about 'bonny Scotland' at every opportunity, and then
get away from it as fast as they can. That odious little shit Nicky
Campbell is a prime example.

Tough Guy no. 1265

2015-06-21 21:44:03 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Full marks for missing the point, which is that wind is not the panacea
that it is made out to be in certain quarters.

And full marks to you for missing the point. That there are far easier
ways of demonstrating that, than posting highly selective data which
can be shot down by reference to two web pages.
And in answer to your earlier question. Having sweaty right wing polemists
such as Andrew Neil presenting your case using what is clearly highly
selective evidence is hardly the way to win any argument based
on a dispassionate appraisal of the facts.
The BBC reference is relevant because under Murdoch's employ
Neil was keen to see an end of the Licence Fee and thus the BBC
But once having been given the bum's rush by Murdoch he's
more than happy to take the BBC shilling funded by that self
same licence fee. Basically he'll change his tune to suit his
pocket.

You WANT the license fee? IT';s theft, taking money for a channel you may or may not want to watch.

--
For the really paranoid who want to destroy data there's nothing like taking the lid off the disk drive and rearranging the sectors with a hammer.

michael adams

2015-06-21 22:03:40 UTC

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.

When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

michael adams

...

Tough Guy no. 1265

2015-06-21 22:08:44 UTC

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame. And I wasn't trolling, the license fee is plain wrong. Why can Sky not sue the BBC? Sky should get an equal portion of the fee.

--
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

michael adams

2015-06-21 22:24:31 UTC

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame.

And now you've never heard of spelling lames.

Is there no limit to depths to which you won't sink ?

michael adams

...

Richard

2015-06-22 07:12:39 UTC

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:03:40 +0100, michael adams

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame.

And now you've never heard of spelling lames.

Add me to the list of never having heard of spelling lames.

Tough Guy no. 1265

2015-06-22 20:49:23 UTC

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame.

And now you've never heard of spelling lames.
Is there no limit to depths to which you won't sink ?

Of course I've heard of them. They're called spelling lames because it's lame to do them.

--
I've had bad luck with both my wives. The first one left me and the second one didn't.

Rod Speed

2015-06-21 22:43:20 UTC

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:03:40 +0100, michael adams

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame. And I wasn't trolling, the license
fee is plain wrong. Why can Sky not sue the BBC?

Because it's govt legislation, stupid.

Sky should get an equal portion of the fee.

The govt feels otherwise. You're free to vote for
any party that wants to change that and get the
same result you got with UKIP, SFA.

Tough Guy no. 1265

2015-06-22 21:10:17 UTC

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:03:40 +0100, michael adams

Post by Tough Guy no. 1265
You WANT the license fee?

No. I want the Licence Fee.
When trolling, its probably best not to lay yourself
open to spelling lames.

Thanks for pointing out you're lame. And I wasn't trolling, the license
fee is plain wrong. Why can Sky not sue the BBC?

Because it's govt legislation, stupid.

Move stupid two words to the left.

Sky should get an equal portion of the fee.

The govt feels otherwise. You're free to vote for
any party that wants to change that and get the
same result you got with UKIP, SFA.

UKIP didn't get in much because of our unfair voting system. They should have got more seats than the SNP.

--
"If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking,
How come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?" - Bill Connolly

The Natural Philosopher

2015-06-20 12:33:31 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

So too does high pressure in winter.

Post by michael adams
So not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who knows fuck
all
about meteorology either.

in terms of a sweaty bullying arsehole, I suspect that you take todays
prize.

Does that make you a bigoted left wing science hater?

Post by michael adams
michael adams
...
.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams

2015-06-20 13:14:42 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

So too does high pressure in winter.

in terms of a sweaty bullying arsehole, I suspect that you take todays prize.

I hardly think my opinion of Andrew Neil, whatever it might be, merits that level of
personal abuse. From the like of you or from anyone else.

Unless of course he's your boyfriend ,or something

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Does that make you a bigoted left wing science hater?

Selective presentation of convenient facts by a biased polemicist, hardly merits the
description of "science" in anyone's book.

Once you've sobered up, there's another word for you to look up in the dictionary

Simply pointing out an error in somebody's reasoning or their selectivity in choosing
their evidence in no way implies a contrary position . Or any position at all for that
matter.
You might well think otherwise, but then that's no surprise. Given that you're not
particularly
bright, to start with,

michael adams

...

Tim Streater

2015-06-20 13:44:32 UTC

I hardly think my opinion of Andrew Neil, whatever it might be, merits that
level of personal abuse. From the like of you or from anyone else.

Post by michael adams
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater,
who knows fuck all about meteorology either.

So aside from the personal abuse of AN, what have you offered here?
Nothing.

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

michael adams

2015-06-20 14:31:55 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
So aside from the personal abuse of AN,

"Personal abuse" is abuse directed towards an individual.

My remarks about Brillo were not directed towrda him. Unless of course
either yourself or TNP happen to be Brillo posting under a pseudonym.

TNP's abuse was directed at me.

Post by Tim Streater
what have you offered here?

These facts.

"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom

"Summer

High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long
warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions

Post by Tim Streater
Nothing.

Except facts which demonstrate the selectivity of Brillo's data.

michael adams

...

Tim Streater

2015-06-20 15:56:32 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
So aside from the personal abuse of AN,

"Personal abuse" is abuse directed towards an individual.
My remarks about Brillo were not directed towrda him.

I still await your explanation as to their relevance.

Post by michael adams
Unless of course either yourself or TNP happen to be Brillo
posting under a pseudonym.
TNP's abuse was directed at me.

Aw diddums.

Post by Tim Streater
what have you offered here?

These facts.
"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
"Summer
High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to
long warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/wea
ther-conditions

Your useful "facts" are what any intelligent and curious 12 year old
would know. You'll have to try harder than that to impress anyone here.

Post by Tim Streater
Nothing.

Except facts which demonstrate the selectivity of Brillo's data.

AN was offering an observation, based on what TNP's gridwatch website
presents. Anyone can do that, even you. He just happened to tweet about
it, and has in fact on occasion tweeted that "at this moment wind is
producing 5GW which is 17% of current demand", or similar.

Inspection of the historical data presented in the graphs shows many
periods of very low output from the wind farms. Those of us who have
been watching gridwatch for some time already know that these happen
when there is high pressure, and that it's not always in the summer.

michael adams

2015-06-20 18:39:24 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
AN was offering an observation, based on what TNP's gridwatch website
presents. Anyone can do that, even you. He just happened to tweet about
it, and has in fact on occasion tweeted that "at this moment wind is
producing 5GW which is 17% of current demand", or similar.

Exactly. So what's the point ?

The only numbers that count are presumably the overall annual cost per kw
generated once capital costs and depretiation are taken into account along with
the capital costs and depreciation and idle time running costs of any standbye
sources of power which may be required to make up any shortfall. ,
Be that nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro or solar if available etc, As against the
overall annual cost per kw generated once capital costs and depreciation
are taken into account for coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and solar

If the numbers simply don't add up, then while wind remains x times more
expensive than any of the other available sources, then that's all
that needs pointing out.

Those are are the only numbers that matter in the end. Not anecdotal
evidence about wind vanes breaking off, towers collapsing altogether
or anything else. Or meaningless statistics concerning a single
days weather.

michael adams

,,,

The Natural Philosopher

2015-06-20 14:08:54 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

So too does high pressure in winter.

in terms of a sweaty bullying arsehole, I suspect that you take todays prize.

I hardly think my opinion of Andrew Neil, whatever it might be, merits that level of
personal abuse. From the like of you or from anyone else.

Excuse me?

You take a position of extreme personal abuse quoting an irrelevant set
of 'facts' that actually confirm what the person you attempt to use them
against, said, as a justification for a total ad hominem,. and you
like to dish it, but you can't takes it?

Really you are less than an amoeba in terms of morality.

I presume you are of the 'green' persuasion. It seems top go with the
territory. Or another LeftyCunt

Post by michael adams
Unless of course he's your boyfriend ,or something

I am gobsmacked. Are you homophobic as well as being a sweaty arsehole
and a leftycunt green?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Does that make you a bigoted left wing science hater?

Selective presentation of convenient facts by a biased polemicist, hardly merits the
description of "science" in anyone's book.

Well exactly.

Yet that is precisely what Greens so called 'Climate Scientists' and
other LeftyCunts specialise in.

Be careful what weapons you use, lest they be used against you.

Post by michael adams
Once you've sobered up, there's another word for you to look up in the dictionary

Is there? What word would that be then? So far you haven't even
approached the limits of my vocabulary.

I note the hardly veiled implication that I have been drinking as yet
another example of a totally unwarranted ad hominem and further proof of
your moral depravity.

Post by michael adams
Simply pointing out an error in somebody's reasoning or their selectivity in choosing
their evidence in no way implies a contrary position . Or any position at all for that
matter.

However you didn't point out an error in their reasoning. You actually
confirmed it, and the use of personal abuse suggest you understood your
argument hadn't a leg to stand on.

And most people would assume that trying to oppose a position with false
evidence that does the reverse, and actually making a rabid personal
attack at the same time does not suggest a person who is disinterested
in that position.

Post by michael adams
You might well think otherwise, but then that's no surprise. Given that you're not
particularly
bright, to start with,

<shrug> depends on your definition of 'bright': I'd certainly claim I
have more qualifications in science than you do.

Post by michael adams
michael adams
...

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams

2015-06-20 15:11:01 UTC

Post by The Natural Philosopher
in terms of a sweaty bullying arsehole, I suspect that you take todays prize.

I hardly think my opinion of Andrew Neil, whatever it might be, merits that level of
personal abuse. From the like of you or from anyone else.

Excuse me?
You take a position of extreme personal abuse

< selective snippage throughout>

Personal abuse is abuse directed at a person.

My description of Neil was about him, but was not directed at him.

It wasn't personal abuse.

In addition theres plenty of evidence that Neil is in fact a sweaty, bullying ,arsehole.
Or at least he was at the ST. And he still sweats on TV.

Whereas you have no evidence whatsoever of whether or not the same is true of me.

You were just being abusive for the sake of it, and your abuse was directed
directly at me.

...

Post by michael adams
Unless of course he's your boyfriend ,or something

I am gobsmacked. Are you homophobic

...

Why should anyone find it objectionable, if you're in a relationship
with Andrew Neil ? Whether homosexual or otherwise ?

Good luck to the two of you, I say .

I was merely pointing out, that that would explain why you were so supportive
of him.

In any case how can anyone even be sure that you're not actually a woman ?

Maybe your'e actually his wife or his girlfriend. Who's to know ?

Or maybe you're a lesbian and Brillo likes being given a hard time.

Who's to know. ?

All I do know is that you were very quick to jump to his defence there.

Suspiciously so IMO.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
However you didn't point out an error in their reasoning.

I pointed out that no conclusion whatsoever could be drawn from such
a small and selective data sample. So what was the point in tweeting
at all ?

michael adams

...

2015-06-20 14:04:24 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

Who'd have thunk it. And at the height of summer too?
"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
"Summer
High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long
warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions
So not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who knows fuck
all
about meteorology either.
michael adams

What, in what he's tweeted, leads you to think he's lacking in the
understanding-meteorology department? Did he need to start the tweet
with 'With typical weather for this time of year...' to keep you happy?
He's making the point that windmills are next-to-useless, which is
something a lot of us agree with.

He's also an exceptionally capable interviewer and presenter of politics
who gives all sides of the subject a rough ride.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

Weatherlawyer

2015-06-25 21:45:06 UTC

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more

Who'd have thunk it. And at the height of summer too?
"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
"Summer
High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long
warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions
So not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who knows fuck
all
about meteorology either.

A bit like the flowerplotmen Margaret Thatcher gave Bracknell to?
If you really want to learn about meteorology try this one:
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=mslp-precip&tz=UTC&area=SH&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+View

The wind signal for the N. Hemisphere starts on Saturday as compression rolls ashore below South America. Consider the theatrics to be Pangaian. But don't let me interrupt your day-time televiewing.

I appreciate moronology beats anything related to science, hands down.

Brian-Gaff

2015-06-20 14:23:09 UTC

Bacon? Does this mean that pigs might fly again?
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

Post by Tim Streater
Wind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more
--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the
right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone
else's pocket.

PeterC

2015-06-21 07:32:11 UTC