On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 12:59:58 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
SNIP

> The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
> the Graudian - left wing bullshit.

It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false statement)

> Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.

> brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.

Oh you mean like loss of freedom of movement?
I benefited from Maggie signing the Single European Act by working there. No longer possible without oodles of paperwork.

To be fair xenophobes rejoiced that thousands of Polish lorry drivers went home.

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

On 07/06/2022 in message <59f4d6ad82bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
wrote:

>In article <xn0niu16de9gs99017@news.individual.net>,
> Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.
>
>Jeff, a word to the wise.
>
>Trust me on this if nothing else.
>
>Don't argue with JJ. There is nothing more pointless, he's happy to
>argue black is white. He's a bit odd, just ignore him.
>
>
>Bob.

Thanks, I seem to have been a bit slow to realise that and this is a nice
group which I enjoy so I'll stop teasing him :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

On 07/06/2022 12:15 pm, Martin wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid
>>>>>>> form know as "Farage".
>
>>>>>> We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
>>>>>> still be stuck in the EU.
>
>>>>> So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
>
>>>> Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
>>>> now free to take our own action to deal with them.
>
>>>> Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
>>>> number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
>
>>> Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
>
>> There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
>> "the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap. I remember taking
>> a temporary job felling trees and clearing shrubbery in the planned path
>> of a motorway in Cheshire, a really long time ago - more than fifty
>> years. It was exhausting and not very well-paid, but it was better than
>> claiming benefit.
>
> There's a lot of things stopping unskilled taking skilled jobs.

But none of them so important that skilled people have more right to
money out of the pockets of their fellow citizens than do unskilled people.

>> AAMOF, that's the way the benefit system was designed to work.

On 07/06/2022 11:07 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view
>>> "these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
>>> to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
>>> long may it last.
>
>> You'll be an SNP supporter, then. :-)
>
> If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
> know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in
> the empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.

"Obviously the whole UK must vote".

Exactly.

And apart from the fact that every citizen should have a say on
constitutional matters anyway, it's the only way that a "Yes" vote will
ever come about.

In case of any doubt, I would vote "Yes" to Scotland leaving the United
Kingdom. I know others who say the same thing. And none of us are Scottish.

On 07/06/2022 in message
<0e1b17a3-bf5c-4dd1-8c4d-05b9d1ebe0f7n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 12:59:58 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>SNIP
>
>>The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
>>the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
>
>It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
>evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false statement)

I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
appropriate to ask me to change my views?

>>Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.

NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".

>>brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics
>>groove.
>
>Oh you mean like loss of freedom of movement?
>I benefited from Maggie signing the Single European Act by working there.
>No longer possible without oodles of paperwork.
>
>To be fair xenophobes rejoiced that thousands of Polish lorry drivers went
>home.

Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
astonishing.

This is my last word, we have annoyed the group long enough but I have
grave concerns about remoaners spreading propaganda on social media.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

On 07/06/2022 14:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <59f439bbf4noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
>> that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
>> despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
>> One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
>> Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
>
> I love the way you refer to "right-whinge people" and then go on to
> have a good whinge. :-)
>
> I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
> leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.

He had no choice. If you'd bothered to watch the documentary covering
the negotiations that you were recommended to watch several years ago,
you'd know that Eire and NI sent a joint delegation during the talks
pleading to both sides that that they didn't want to see a hard border
dividing Ireland as of old reinstated.

> Though in
> fairness to him, he was left a terrible hand to play after the
> duplicitous Theresa May intentionally negotiated a total surrender.

Bollocks. Different PM, but same problem.

> Brexit was never about improving trade, everyone who voted for Brexit
> realised that it would have a negative impact especially during the
> inevitable sulking phase but considered that other things were more
> important.

Then why back in 2018 did you make the following economic lies:

On 11/10/2018 10:21, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <pplpd6$s78$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>
> The economic damage to the country at the moment is being caused by
> the treasury and the bank of england who are both taxing and
> restricting money supply ie. putting the brakes on as a deliberate
> policy - look it up. There has been no damage attributed to the vote.
> If there had been, remain would be all over it but they're not
> because much to their chagrin there isn't any, despite their absurd
> and proven wrong predictions.

To which I replied:
Another Brexshit lie. They have been doing this on and off ever since
the crash of 2008, because our national debt has reached a record high
of 87%, and it must be brought down. This has everything to do with the
recession of 2008 and nothing whatever to do with Brexit.

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

> When we
> went into the common market we immediately went into a recession,
> when we entered the EU we immediately went into another recession.
> Look that up too and then look at the exchange rate mechanism and
> black Wednesday.

So of course I did look it up:

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

Mid-1970s recessions:
1973 oil crisis, stagflation, the decline of traditional British
industries, inefficient production, high inflation caused industrial
disputes over pay.

Nothing at all to do with us joining then Common Market.

Early 1980s recession:
Deflationary government policies including spending cuts, pursuance of
monetarism to reduce inflation, switch from a manufacturing economy to a
services economy.

Nothing at all to do with us being a member of the then Common Market.

Early 1990s recession (occurred well *before* the Maastricht Treaty came
into force on 1st November 1993):
US savings and loan crisis, high bank rate in response to rising
inflation caused by the Lawson Boom and to maintain British membership
of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Only a very loose association with being a member of the then Common Market.

Great Recession (2008)
Late 2000s financial crisis, rising global commodity prices, subprime
mortgage crisis infiltrating the British banking sector, significant
credit crunch.

Only a very loose association with being a member of the EU.

So again, your assertion above that being in Europe has chronically
harmed our economy is just another Brexshit lie.

> There is no evidence that the EU has ever helped the
> British economy.

To which I replied:
As above, there is no evidence that it ever harmed it either. But,
actually there is evidence that it has helped our economy:

https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

"The growth effect

Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as
the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and
Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced
more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between
1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross
domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries
compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross
domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and
France in the more than 40 years since. By 2013, Britain became more
prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies
for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain
would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his
colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic
performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like
the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."

So if Brexshit was never about economics, why the lie on the bus, and
your perennial attempt to claim that being in the EU had harmed our economy?

> For me, the fairy-tale promise that wasn't kept was getting us from
> under the control of the EU, a body we can't un-elect.

Yawn! As explained before, you can't unelect the civil-service either.

> But we were
> out enough to do a much better job on vaccines which resulted in some
> odious antics and foot stamping from the embarrassed, plodding EU.

Oh, so now, when it happens to be convenient, we did a good job on
vaccines, so why throughout the pandemic were you questioning their
effectiveness?

> But I notice all the Liberal, Left, Remoaners on here wish to blame
> Brexit for all our financial ills.

So here again you are arguing about Brexshit's financial ills, when
above you said that Brexshit wasn't about the economy. No matter,
either way, the fact remains that, exactly as predicted, *some* of our
financial ills are down to Brexshit.

> Never a mention of the insanity of
> shutting down the nation for two years, that had no impact did it?

It takes two to tango, we couldn't've kept our economy going when the
rest of the world was shutting down theirs.

> Or
> how about the socialist style massive overspend of billions and the
> consequential high tax demand?

You voted them in.

> Or the effect of our absurd and
> utterly pointless "action on climate change".

By far the majority of our population are concerned about climate change:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/threequartersofadultsingreatbritainworryaboutclimatechange/2021-11-05

> or the endless sums of
> money pumped into the NHS that ends up spent on wokery by idiot
> managers.

No *facts* given in support of pothead paranoia.

> No, none of that has had any barring has it. No because the
> Liberal left caused that damage and constantly wanted it all harder,
> sooner, longer.

No *facts* given in support of pothead paranoia.

> Brexit is a very handy scapegoat indeed.

Despite your endless, mindless ranting, the fact remains that, entirely
as predicted, Brexshit is harming our economy.

> Disingenuous hypocrisy.
>
> A very famous woman once said something to the effect that the EU's
> collapse is inevitable, it's just a question of how much damage it
> does between now and then. I'm sure she was correct, she usually was.

As long it fails to face the realities of political life in general and
Brexshit in particular, as long as it is 'governed' - if that's not
too flattering a term - by those who believe they can solve any
problem simply by lying about it, England's partial collapse is
inevitable, what'll happen to the other UK nations will largely depend
on how soon they can unshackle themselves from the corpse and get out
from under.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 13:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 in message <t7nhd9$1dt$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>

[Jeff Gaines has broken the quoting again, perhaps in an attempt to
obscure that he wrote:]

>>> We are doing very well in many areas.
>>
>> In what areas, where are your facts to support this claim?
>>
>> And now the goalposts move again.  First it was: "We're doing very
>> well". Next, after being challenged to justify that claim, it was: "I
>> don't have to, it's just my view", now it's: "We are doing very well
>> in many areas", all without a single supporting fact given in evidence.
>
> I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.

The only assumption I need to make here is that as you are continually
making statements that you cannot corroborate, you are in fact lying.

>>> It is you who is trying to  interpret that as just relating to
>>> economics -where there are many  factors affecting it of course.
>>
>> The lie written on the side of a bus was economic one, and you haven't
>> given any evidence whatsoever to support any other claim of benefit.
>
> I didn't write anything on the side of a bus.

More importantly, you haven't said anything to support your statement
above that: "We are doing very well in many areas." When are you going
to stop lying and start supporting your statements with verifiable
information?

> You didn't believe it did
> you, you would have to be a complete muppet to believe that sort of
> marketing puff.

Yet it seems a great many people were taken in by it, so you are calling
the great British public 'muppets'. I thought Brexshit was claimed to
be, however erroneously, all about patriotism?

>>>> Etc, etc.  You've been led to water many times now, it's time to
>>>> drink it.
>>>
>>> Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking
>>> about economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote
>>> to join) brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the
>>> economics groove.
>
>> Yet, despite many requests, you seem unable to state a single one, let
>> alone actually justify it with supporting facts.  When anyone posts
>> crap here which I set out to debunk, if they supply a link, usually I
>> read/listen/watch it, if only far enough to be able to debunk it
>> convincingly, whereas you just refuse to even read the links to
>> information that runs counter to your religion, in other words, you
>> are in a state of denial.
>
> Why on earth should I post links about my views, I am not on a crusade
> and don't care if people believe them or not.

No-one here believes you, because then why are you bothering to post
your views and taking flak for doing so? The simple truth is that this
is a religion for you.

>> What you choose to believe in your own private fairyland is your own
>> business, but any lie you post here will be debunked.
>
> I used to work in a  home for people with learning difficulties, autism,
> down syndrome etc. and the way you express things, and your expectation
> that sentient adults will march to your tune, is beginning to wake some
> memories, have we met?

From the naivety of your posts, I suspect you were actually one of the
residents.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 15:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 in message <59f4d6ad82bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
> wrote:
>>
>> Don't argue with JJ. There is nothing more pointless, he's happy to
>> argue black is white. He's a bit odd, just ignore him.

Been looking in the mirror again I see. Finally got i repaired after it
cracked thge last time?

> Thanks, I seem to have been a bit slow to realise  that and this is a
> nice group which I enjoy so I'll stop teasing him :-)

Just stop lying.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 11:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
> know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in the
> empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.

The problem is that there are no signs of the majority in Scotland
wanting partition.

Also the SNP oppose any part of Scotland opting out of partition and
remaining in the UK, leaving r-Scotland to go and do their own thing.

On 07/06/2022 17:29, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 in message
> <0e1b17a3-bf5c-4dd1-8c4d-05b9d1ebe0f7n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
> wrote:
>>
>> It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
>> evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false
>> statement)
>
> I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
> appropriate to ask me to change my views?

I couldn't care a FF about views that you hold in private, but if you
express views in public, you should be willing and able to support them
with evidence.

>>> Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>> In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
>
> NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it
> was a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".

And since 1975 we were happy enough for our government to sign all the
appropriate treaties to join the EU, treaties to which we should have
adhered.

> This is my last word, we have annoyed the group long enough

Roll on the day!

> but I have
> grave concerns about remoaners spreading propaganda on social media.

A classic case of a denialist calling what is black 'white' and white
'black'.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 17:29, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
> a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".

Which was purely a trading organisation, I think the Euro Army (like
someone features) was denied.

Don't know if it is true but I read once the Common Market has gone
through a series of name changes without every bothering with the legal
formalities.

On 07/06/2022 17:59, MB wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 11:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
>> know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in the
>> empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.
>
> The problem is that there are no signs of the majority in Scotland
> wanting partition.

FALSE! The population has been split close to 50-50 on the matter for a
number of years. That suggests that it wouldn't take very much to tip
the matter either way.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170409/scottish-independence/

Perhaps we should do our best to ensure that Boris gets a few more years
and enough rope to hang himself :-)

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/06/2022 18:05, MB wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 17:29, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
>> a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
>
> Which was purely a trading organisation, I think the Euro Army (like
> someone features) was denied.

It was, as it's name implied, a common market. Nevertheless, it was
always implicitly or explicitly understood that further integration
between member countries was widely expected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background

First, notwithstanding that there are many who criticise some aspect or
other of his policies or his behaviour, no leader of modern times has a
bigger reputation for loyally serving this country than Winston
Churchill, yet ...

"In a radio address in March 1943, with war still raging, Britain's
leader Sir Winston Churchill spoke warmly of "restoring the true
greatness of Europe" once victory had been achieved, and mused on the
post-war creation of a "Council of Europe" which would bring the
European nations together to build peace.

Preliminary (1945–57)

After World War II, European integration was seen as an antidote to the
extreme nationalism which had devastated the continent.[42] In a speech
delivered on 19 September 1946 at the University of Zürich, Switzerland,
Winston Churchill went further and advocated the emergence of a United
States of Europe.[43]"

Note "United States Of Europe", so we knew what was intended right from
the start and that understanding was implicit in 1975. I know, because
I voted at the time, and I remember thinking that if Britain and Ireland
couldn't agree on a solution to the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' which at
the time had been such endlessly devastating and heart-breaking news
over several years, perhaps a way forward might be that we became three
separate countries in some sort of United States Of Europe. Others I
knew at college and later university also mentioned similar ideas, so we
knew exactly what we were voting for.

> Don't know if it is true but I read once the Common Market has gone
> through a series of name changes without every bothering with the legal
> formalities.

So if you don't know whether it's true, and can't be arsed to check it
out, why post it? Typical Brexshit mud-slinging, that's why.

When are you going to learn to base your views upon *EVIDENCE* instead
of mindless bigotry?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <xn0nish4ncmixii00x@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I have no obligation to do either except it's off topic for the group so
> the three of us (sorry I think I referred to you incorrectly) have an
> obligation to shut up. Nobody has an obligation to put up of course.

That's fine. None of us are paid to try and educate you.But JJ or others
may still decide to warn others that your 'views' are vacuous and you
refuse to learn. May help others even if you are beyond reason.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jg6a0mF8q9jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.

> There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
> "the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap.

Alas, t'other way round isn't so easy. So that may just put someone even
poorer out of a potential job.

And the main problem is the 'unskilled' workers who are unemployed in
areas where there are no jobs for them - and they can't afford to move or
travel to anywhere that might have a vacancy for a task they could do.

In large part this is because both employers and government have ignored
the problem and regarded it as "someone else's task" to fix.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the
> Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.

That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.

The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - which
got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' that could
omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled trades.

So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail because of
the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the clueless "11 Plus
exam" methods of selection being so inherently incompetent.

Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany. Because
the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was rather
different there to England.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jg6aeaF8s1gU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> You can't blame a government of the 1980s for the very "right on"
> Crosland policy of wrecking English education. It started in the 1960s
> and was continued throughout the 1970s. The incoming 1979 government
> actually stopped that rot, whereas you paint the picture the opposite
> way round.

Indeed. But each Government bears the responsibility for the damage they
inflicted on education. Thatcher was just one stark example of a series of
wilful failings. Tony B Lair also did a lot of damage by shifting so much
from training to having students go to uni to get degrees, that in some
cases weren't much use except as a pretty paper on their wall. Later Tory
Governments also crippled the OU's ability to help people in later life to
get an affordable HE that would aid them into a skilled job.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 04:37:42 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 10:07:39 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <t7img5$uct$1...@dont-email.me>, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
>> > > not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
>> > > still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
>> > >
>>
>> > Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
>> May depend on the meaning of "us" I suspect. 8-]
>>
>> After all, Scotland voted against leaving the EU, and may become
>> independent. It may then amuse the EU to welcome Scotland as a member in
>> the future - if nothing else, amusing as a way to 'surround' the rUK and
>> give it yet another 'border' problem to muddle. 8->
>>
>> Not likely soon, but given how things have been changing recently, who
>> knows!
>> Jim
>>
>> --
>> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
>> Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
>> biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
>> Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
>
>Border with Scotland in sparsely populated area, with few crossing points.

It is so in Northern Ireland.

--
brightside S9

On 7 Jun 2022 11:59:56 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
>economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.

You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government voted
to join. That's how democracies work.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In article <35f74519-befd-4ca4-a709-e2a092d23e5fn@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> There was lots of noise - road, wind, engine, but nevertheless I could
> easily differentiate. Probably the dynamic range, or just the much
> poorer S/N ratio on vinyl.

Depends on the type of music, etc, but in some cases the LP has a very
different level compression/EQ to a later CD version. In some cases this
also shows up for a symultaneous release. Measurements to show this in some
cases are on my webpages.

Also, LP replay systems (i.e. cartridge and arm/deck) also tend to alter
the output in characteristic ways. e.g. distorting peaks or 'end of side'
waveforms to an audible extent. Also tend to have very different H and V
response curves. (Although many reviews of cartridges failed to show this
at all!)

So not surprising if someone finds an audible difference.

Which one they *prefer* when they are different is another question. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t7nutt$njl$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
> > leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.

> He had no choice.

It was obvious from the start that Boris was pretending three requirements
could all be satisfied.

1) No noticable border between Eire and NI

2) No noticable border between NI and UK

3) No UK membership of the single market, etc.

(1) Followed from the International Agreement signed and nominally required
by the USA as being above UK Law to drop.

(2) Was required by the Dinosuars of the DUP, etc, that he needed to get
things passed in the HoC.

(3) Politically required to keep Brexiteers happy.

BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to whoosh
between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost. This was 'oven
ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo insisted, so they said,
"Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed up on that basis. His problem.

Alas, that 'technology' - as many of us predicted - was essentially a
payload to be delivered on mytical unicorns. It didn't exist when promised,
and no prospect of it showing up on the day we left the EU. So it became
our problem.

Since then BloJo has used his standard approach. Bluster and blame eveyone
else for his failings and delusional promises. We are now out of the EU,
Common Market, etc, so have to deal with the drawbacks as well as any
gains. Not wave a wand and assume that has already made them vanish.

People have been warning for years that BloJo is a serial liar and
fantasist. But his troops supported him because he was 'popular' with the
believers... until now, when a sizeable number of them now are waking up
and smelling the coffee... erm, tea.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> > In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the
> > Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.

> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.

> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - which
> got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' that could
> omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled trades.

> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail because
> of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the clueless "11
> Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently incompetent.

> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany. Because
> the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was rather
> different there to England.

> Jim

In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/06/2022 10:56 am, Martin wrote:

> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
>> economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>> brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.
>
> You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government voted
> to join. That's how democracies work.

They work even better when the electorate's view is expressed directly,
without having be filtered through the beliefs of a particular and
largely self-appointed set of individuals with a tendency to "go native"
when faced with a liberal establishment.

On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
> In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the
>>> Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.
>
>> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
>
>> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - which
>> got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' that could
>> omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled trades.
>
>> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail because
>> of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the clueless "11
>> Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently incompetent.
>
>> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany. Because
>> the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was rather
>> different there to England.
>
>> Jim
>
> In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.

It is so in the UK as well. We also have a hierarchy of professional and
academic qualifications for engineering, just as we do for medicine, the
law, etc. And those at the top of their trade are respected.

The unmade distinction is that between professional (graduate) engineers
(frequently attracting the title "Herr Doktor" in Germany and) the much
more numerous and just as personally worthy engineering workers, with or
without vocational qualifications (eg, C&G in England and Wales).

On 08/06/2022 10:56, Martin wrote:
> You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government voted
> to join. That's how democracies work.

I suspect he might be referring to originally voting to join a trading
partnership which evolved, without further votes into the start of a
federalised Europe with its laws overruling UK law, an Army (even though
they denied any plans for a Euro-army). The Euro-extremists have never
really admitted that their eventual aim was a federal Europe ruled from
Brussels.