Cunting lorry drivers.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Silk on 26 Nov 2009 04:01 On 25/11/2009 23:47, Ray Keattch wrote: > Silk wrote: >> On 25/11/2009 20:49, Harry Bloomfield wrote: >>> mileburner formulated the question : >>>> No wonder the railways struggle to make money. They pay 50 grand for >>>> some monkey to sit in a box pulling levers. >>> >>> They don't pull any more, they flip switches and push buttons. >> >> To be replaced by a computer in the near future. > > Not quite - the technology may be there, but implementation is years away. More likely the unions say know. That won't last long under a Conservative government.
From: Ace on 26 Nov 2009 04:03 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:54:26 +0000, Silk <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On 26/11/2009 07:17, The Older Gentleman wrote: >> <snip> >> >> General observation: why is privacy.net the last refuge of complete >> tossers? Think Spacker on upce. > >Having a go at the method one uses to post on Usenet is the last refuge >of the loser of the argument. Claiming that your critics have 'lost' the argument is a sure sign of one who's 'lost' his grip on reality.
From: CT on 26 Nov 2009 04:10 vulgarandmischevious wrote: > Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > > > Ah, the "superiour smug" response - a usenet favourite. Well done. > > Can we just skip a few steps and go straight to death threats? This > thread is a bit boring now. *shocked* I thought you'd want to show how "superiour smug" really should be done. -- Chris
From: Silk on 26 Nov 2009 04:37 On 26/11/2009 09:10, CT wrote: > vulgarandmischevious wrote: > >> Champ<news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> Ah, the "superiour smug" response - a usenet favourite. Well done. >> >> Can we just skip a few steps and go straight to death threats? This >> thread is a bit boring now. > > *shocked* > > I thought you'd want to show how "superiour smug" really should be done. I already know, having met plenty of bikers. They also do a good line in sanctimonious as well.
From: boltar2003 on 26 Nov 2009 05:31
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:18:17 +0000 dan(a)telent.net wrote: >I don't think the feudal lords were responsible for much of anything at >all by 1450: the Hundred Years War (archers) and the Black Death >(reduction in available peasants) had pretty much put an end to >feudalism between them by then. > >But maybe Boltar has some particular road and some particular >tenant-in-chief in mind Ok fine , my history needs improving. The point is that the roads even when county councils had the chance were never straightened but instead still follow the old trackways which in turn generally follow old field boundaries or the whims of the local drovers. What might have been convenient for shifting cattle 300 years ago to avoid boggy ground or whatever is irrelevant for modern vehicles on tarmac roads. If the railways generally can be built straight or with gentle curves so can the roads. I dread to think of the amount of fuel wasted by all manor of vehicles constantly slowing down for endless bends in the road then having to speed up again. Even the bloody motorways in this country can't be built straight FFS even though compulsary land purchase is a must with these projects anyway. B2003 |