Ordnance Survey maps on the iPhone/iPad
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Roger Merriman on 18 Jun 2010 02:28 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > Tim Hodgson <thnews(a)poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Go to Rymans and buy a thick elastic band? > > > > I picked up one that the postman dropped on our path > > Whenever I go walking to get the kids from school, I pick up the rubber > bands that postmen discard. Every day, I get at least five or six on the > same short route. Royal Mail must go through tonnes of rubber bands a > day. Why the hell don't they re-use them? they do, but when you have tighly packed bundles, a few will drop though, after all bands are prised when I worked for royal mail, in terms of numbers and quaility, as gettting new ones is a pain. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: Sak Wathanasin on 18 Jun 2010 03:30 On 18 June, 07:28, N...(a)sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) wrote: > they do, but when you have tighly packed bundles, a few will drop > though, after all bands are prised when I worked for royal mail, in > terms of numbers and quaility, as gettting new ones is a pain. Well, I don't throw away the ones I get, so I have a boxful if you want them...
From: Roger Merriman on 18 Jun 2010 03:40 Sak Wathanasin <sw(a)nan.co.uk> wrote: > On 18 June, 07:28, N...(a)sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) wrote: > > > they do, but when you have tighly packed bundles, a few will drop > > though, after all bands are prised when I worked for royal mail, in > > terms of numbers and quaility, as gettting new ones is a pain. > > Well, I don't throw away the ones I get, so I have a boxful if you > want them... I still have a ball of them and I haven't worked at royal mail for 3 years. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 Jun 2010 06:05 Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > >Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> No, Rowland, you do not know as much about marketting economics as I > >> do, and you never will. > > > >Of course your education and erudition are far greater than those > >attainable by any mortal man, and of course your personal claims for > >your superhuman abilities are perfectly adequate to dismiss any > >suggestion that your opinions might possibly in some fashion be in > >error. > > > You are looking in a mirror as you say this - yes? I think you'll find it was *YOU* who made the astonishingly arrogant and ignorant claim: "No, Rowland, you do not know as much about marketting economics as I do, and you never will." > >And of course the fact that you look down on me and have a good line in > >sneering at me means you can totally ignore all my actual points - no, > >none of my points matter, all that matters is that you know that you > >know so much more about economics than I do, so that's all right then. > > What points? Reading the thread again, I cannot see that you raised > any points of fact. You did have a typical rant, but that does not > cover points of fact. [snip] As usual in your replies to me, you again make no attempt to deal with the issues, just firing off another very tedious and predictable rant about me personally. The reason my post commented on you is that you ignored all my points, points which you now claim do not exist, /and also/ hurled some derision my way to imply that my opinions are worthless. And sure enough, you indulge in your usual behaviour in your latest post, repeating exactly the same pattern. Personal stuff like that is not what this newsgroup was set up for - it's for technical discussion, not playground taunts. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Dr Geoff Hone on 19 Jun 2010 13:25
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:05:40 +0100, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >> >> >Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >> No, Rowland, you do not know as much about marketting economics as I >> >> do, and you never will. >> > >> >Of course your education and erudition are far greater than those >> >attainable by any mortal man, and of course your personal claims for >> >your superhuman abilities are perfectly adequate to dismiss any >> >suggestion that your opinions might possibly in some fashion be in >> >error. >> > >> You are looking in a mirror as you say this - yes? > >I think you'll find it was *YOU* who made the astonishingly arrogant and >ignorant claim: > >"No, Rowland, you do not know as much about marketting economics as I >do, and you never will." > Not a claim, Rowland, just a simple straightforward statement of fact. >> >And of course the fact that you look down on me and have a good line in >> >sneering at me means you can totally ignore all my actual points - no, >> >none of my points matter, all that matters is that you know that you >> >know so much more about economics than I do, so that's all right then. >> >> What points? Reading the thread again, I cannot see that you raised >> any points of fact. You did have a typical rant, but that does not >> cover points of fact. > >[snip] > >As usual in your replies to me, you again make no attempt to deal with >the issues, just firing off another very tedious and predictable rant >about me personally. First you complain that I will not deal with your non-existanr points, now you complain that I will not address the issues You sound just like a politician evading the real issue. > >The reason my post commented on you is that you ignored all my points, >points which you now claim do not exist, /and also/ hurled some derision >my way to imply that my opinions are worthless. No, sorry. I offered a concise reason for a particular pricing structure. YOU rubbished this. I provided a simple but detailed explanation that even an A-Level Economics student could follow. You rubbished that. Did you offer an alternative? NO. All you can do is to try the playground approach of attempting to shout down anyone who challenges you when you make a false statement. > >And sure enough, you indulge in your usual behaviour in your latest >post, repeating exactly the same pattern. > >Personal stuff like that is not what this newsgroup was set up for - >it's for technical discussion, not playground taunts. I thought that playground taunts were your domain. My explanation of pricing structures would qualify as technical, whereas your ranting abuse clearly does not. |