New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 15:20 John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:57:34 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <44D628FF.FC0D5FCD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug > >2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > > >>In the UK it simply means that house purchase has become beyond the > >>means of many who would once have been able to afford to buy. > >> > >>Round here, house purchase is no longer possible on anything other than > >>a very serious income. > > > >It's a self-fulfilling process. House prices rise, and the industry > >finds more and more ingenious ways of making those prices affordable. > >It's very much in the interest of their commission payments to do so. > >It's got to the point now that the Government can't stop it; action to > >restore realistic prices would create widespread hardship. The reasons > >are complex and I don't propose to recount them here. > > > >The really spectacular escalation occurred from around 50 years ago, as > >provident people became able to purchase their house as sitting tenants. > >Over about 30 years, the value of the house increased 100-fold. > > In California, the squeeze results from increasing population combined > with putting a lot of land off-limits to development. You don't have a > lot of surplus land in Britain, either, I guess. Housing is a fraction > of our local pricing in, say, Texas or Florida. The problem in the SE of Engalnd is likewise exacerbated by demand and lack of much suitably designated land. You can buy a house for 'peanuts' in some areas but getting a job there might be trickier. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 15:42 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:36:17 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > > >> Yeah, you don't hate the US, huh??? > > > >Compared to France......... > > --- > What's that supposed to mean? That France hates us more than you > do, or that you hate France more than you do the US, or what??? I was referring to those posters here who regularly exhibit their contempt for France. Turning the question round if you like. Note my choice of words btw - I don't simplifiy everything to black and white. The word hate should only ever be used where it's justified. > >It's not hate John. I see you don't criticise those on your side of the ocean > >who probably do hate France with no good reason btw. > > --- > That's because on this side of the pond there's no good reason _not_ > to hate France! ;) Pfftttt.... > Except for the Statue of Liberty, the Louisiana purchase, the gram, > the metre, foie gras and Roquefort and Bordeaux and on and on... > > Seriously, though, why would you expect me to ride herd on US > Francophobes? Not specifically I don't. What I had in mind was the way you ( or was it JL? ) jumped on me for what amounts to suggesting a fairly innocent action whilst not commenting on your countrymen here who are happily proposing mass murder to solve geo-political issues ! > I've never been to France, so I don't have any > hands-on experience with the niceties or even the not-so-niceties of > that culture, so that puts me out of judgement range. You're somewhat more rational than some here. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 15:44 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:12:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >> >> > Yes, it does. If you're in the paper products or produce business. >> >It would be damn hard to make money selling apples and other fruit >> >without growing them on trees. It would also be very hard to build >> >decent homes without lumber, which grows on trees, as well. >> >> Yep... even the media that the "money" got printed on came from >> trees. > >Rag has been traditionally used actually ! You can't get much right can you ? Where do you think rag comes from, twit?
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 15:49 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:31:20 GMT, Sandbox Moderator <yahright(a)example.com> Gave us: >Bill, please don't trollfeed. It's unseemly. Dude, you are retarded. Your new nym proves that beyond doubt.
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 15:57
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:06:56 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <1154865648.931183.173690(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >> >> >As was pointed out before you invaded Irak, the three-way division of >> >Irak into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites makes it impossible to construct a >> >stable government. >> >> The *government* was reasonably stable before Saddam, and, of course, >> during his reign of oppression and genocide. Various sectors of the >> population experienced bad things; such was the price of 'stability'. > >Overall it seems that the price under Saddam was less than the price under the >coalition. --- I think the cost in innocent Human lives under Saddam Hussein was greater than the cost after his deposition. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |