Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: |||newspam||| on 14 Nov 2006 10:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1163176958.162131.272120(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> They didn't own. > > > >Oh yes they did at least in the UK - and those with a certain modest > >amount of land got to vote too. > > I thought that property was entailed? What are you talking about? It is pretty easy to check who owned what at the time of the Magna Carta - translations are online eg for Yorkshire. The crown owns quite a lot of land, but by no means all of it. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/dol/images/examples/pdfs/yorks.pdf > > The poorest were usually tennants of a > >rich landowner (and that still persists to some extent in rural areas). > >Private rental property is still very common on mainland Europe and it > >has nothing at all to do with promigenture(sic). > > > >Successful merchants and tradesmen tended to acquire enough wealth to > >own their premises and if relevant some land to go with it. > > But this only happened after the middle class became the majority? The middle class is still not the majority in the UK (depending on how you define the class boundaries). Current predictions reckon they will be in the majoirty by about 2020. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2165886.html (oh I forgot with your antediluvian 14400 modem weblinks are no use to you) or http://www.fusionsoftware.co.uk/SocialGradeDefinitions.aspx Middle class ~ B+C1 = 48% now BTW most computer fairs give away old external 56k modems now for just a few $. > >> Europe is based on promigenture and that's very > >> different from the way the US operated. > > > >Are you dyslexic or something? ITYM Primogeniture > > Thanks. I didn't use to be dyslexic. It seems that the disease > I have causes brain wires to be crossed in a very odd manner. > I'm still trying to figure out the bugs. I couldn't find the > correct spelling in the dictionary. In that case you really do need an NHS. The USA is a great place to be young, fit, healthy and wealthy, but a bad and expensive place to be unlucky enough to have a chronic disease. > >> the US got rid of promigenture. That is real property ownership > >> where its disposal and use is solely the decision of the owner > >> and not some outdated inheiritance laws based on kingships. > > > >Primogeniture inheritance was done primarily to keep the large landed > >gentry estates of the aristocracy intact. And even then estates were > >bought and sold as the new super rich of the industrial revolution came > >along. > > Right. The time frame I was thinking about when I wrote the > above was the 1700-1800s. Middle class hadn't become super > rich. You are hopelessly confused. The middle class of that period included some people who were very rich by trading in goods with amonst other places the new US colonies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/trade_empire_01.shtml Go back a bit further in history and trading in wool was immensely profitable. Some of the monasteries like Fountains Abbey were extremely wealthy. The industrial corporate giants of their day right up to the moment Henry VIII sequestered them (worth a visit even today). > Trade was still filling the government's coffers rather > than an individuals. Companies didn't own trade routes, governments > did...or a consortium approved and controlled by the king did. The Crown didn't do that much controlling. It did levy taxes and fund the Royal Navy and with control of the worlds oceans came the opportunity for more international trade. > >The cash poor, asset rich landed gentry were smart enough to > >acquire money by marriage into the upcoming new industriallists. > > That is how the entailments survive today. How did they get > funds in the 1700 and 1800s? The landed gentry were supported by rents paid by their tennants (mostly farmers) on quarter days. Trading merchants, brewers, even industrious publicans could make a pretty good living. Certainly enough to buy their own premises and some land. I think you need to find some decent historical text books. Regards, Martin Brown
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 10:48 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <8diel2lgi476464dbdf8rvlj6r8q9ngkm4(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I am at a slight loss in the >>>>>medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>>>>the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. >>>> >>>>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>> >>>We pay the development costs. >> >>What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? > > > Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include > theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for some time now that if you can't afford the medicines you need you should contact them because they have programs to assist those living in poverty needing their products.
From: Don Bowey on 14 Nov 2006 10:49 On 11/14/06 2:01 AM, in article hi2jl2t5p328ckq0c5gmf0336646ohi12u(a)4ax.com, "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: (snip) It's difficult to want to agree with such an arrogant person as you...... So I guess I won't.
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 10:53 Don Bowey wrote: > On 11/13/06 4:55 PM, in article 455913F2.8AFC7928(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>What sort of preventive treatment is there for cancer? >> >>Good diet avoiding excessive red meat and processed foods and including plenty >>of >>fresh fruit and veg. >> >>Not smoking. >> >>Avoidance of exposure to carcinogens. > > > But that includes not charring my steaks.... I'll need to skip that one. > But I'll make up for it by using a good wine with which to enjoy it. > I don't read Eeyore. That being said, what he proposes are measures, not treatments, to be taken by a person caring for themselves. None of that requires "preventive" physician services which was the topic he is unable to follow.
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 10:57
Don Bowey wrote: > On 11/14/06 2:01 AM, in article hi2jl2t5p328ckq0c5gmf0336646ohi12u(a)4ax.com, > "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > > (snip) > > It's difficult to want to agree with such an arrogant person as you...... So > I guess I won't. > Generally difficult to talk to on any level. |