Thatcher - Is it possible people have selective memories when remembering her legacy?

[nino_savatte]

Now now mate. George produced a lot of "evidence". The fact that most of it was either "received wsdom", "something his lecturer had told him" or "stuff he'd read" is besides the point, to George (and only George) it was evidence.

Surely we can't hold it against the youngster that he's obviously a bit slow, after all, it's the character trait that'll serve him best as a member of the officer corps.

The lad probably dreams of following in the footsteps of Iain "Duncan" Smith and David Davies, a few years as an adjutant, getting buggered by potbellied brigadiers, then a career in politics.

Ain't life grand!

Aye, George has all the right qualifications to be an officer in the Guards or something. Why think for yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you?

I've been less than graceful with the evidence that he's presented haven't I? I'm such cynic!

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes i know.

I've also strongly recommended you guys have primaries.

But everyone tells me i'm full of shit in that regard..........

You really don't understand British politics do you?

 

[gpbg48]

Now now mate. George produced a lot of "evidence". The fact that most of it was either "received wsdom", "something his lecturer had told him" or "stuff he'd read" is besides the point, to George (and only George) it was evidence.

Surely we can't hold it against the youngster that he's obviously a bit slow, after all, it's the character trait that'll serve him best as a member of the officer corps.

The lad probably dreams of following in the footsteps of Iain "Duncan" Smith and David Davies, a few years as an adjutant, getting buggered by potbellied brigadiers, then a career in politics.

Ain't life grand!

Actually 'ViolentPanda' its evidence to alot more people than me. They're statistics, mostly, almost all from the ONS (so don't claim they're invalid), and I took pains to put them into context, when you erroneously claimed a number of things in such a manner that you hope I would accept they were true (or else you actually believed them) about 'the evil b*tch' (or feelings to the equivilent). Not very objective is it.

In fact, I've seen very little in the way of evidence from you ViolentPanda, and others - just speculations presented as fact on a thread where the vast majority agree with you, so you don't get questioned!

In short, bugger off!!!

P.S. In the least obnoxious and petulent way possible, I'm willing to bet my IQ is a fair bit higher than yours, before you call me 'slow', old man!

 

[gpbg48]

Funny how you ducked my point and regurgitated the same stuff you used earlier back at me.

The spiv was emboldened under Thatcher.

Nino,

What was your point?! Apologies if it has been lost in this morass 'posts', would you care to present it again please. If it's something to do with Blair and Thatcher, as the post quoted possibly implies, I'd urge you to make another point, since it has very little to do with mine, and if it does, there's a nasty chance it might backfire and support what I have been trying to say!

All the best,
George.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino,

What was your point?! Apologies if it has been lost in this morass 'posts', would you care to present it again please. If it's something to do with Blair and Thatcher, as the post quoted possibly implies, I'd urge you to make another point, since it has very little to do with mine, and if it does, there's a nasty chance it might backfire and support what I have been trying to say!

All the best,
George.

You quoted it George, read it again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually 'ViolentPanda' its evidence to alot more people than me. They're statistics, mostly, almost all from the ONS (so don't claim they're invalid), and I took pains to put them into context, when you erroneously claimed a number of things in such a manner that you hope I would accept they were true (or else you actually believed them) about 'the evil b*tch' (or feelings to the equivilent). Not very objective is it.

George, I've said it before, I'll say it again:

You didn't give a citation or source for any of the "facts" you posted, you alluded to the possibility that you might have either; been told them by your lecturer, read them somewhere, or heard them from someone else.
Not very objective, are you?
AS for your mention of my erroneousness, I believe I corrected your correction of me, something which, as you didn't attempt to correct me further, I presumed you'd investigated and slapped yourself on the wrist for being a twat.

In fact, I've seen very little in the way of evidence from you ViolentPanda, and others - just speculations presented as fact on a thread where the vast majority agree with you, so you don't get questioned!

It isn't incumbent on me to provide evidence. You're the person contending various points, it's incumbent on you to support your thesis, you haven't (see above).
If you wish to question me, list out your questions in a proper manner and I'll answer them.

In short, bugger off!!!

Is that the best you can do, you sweaty-palmed dripping from a donkeys' pissflaps?
I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but I'm sure your rectal orifice is so packed with shit nothing else would fit up there.

P.S. In the least obnoxious and petulent way possible, I'm willing to bet my IQ is a fair bit higher than yours, before you call me 'slow', old man!

Oh please, George. IQ (a la MENSA) doesn't measure intelligence, it measures the ability to answer culturally specific questions. The last time mine was done was 25 years ago, when I was 17. It was 158 (above average, but nowhere near genius level) back then.
Intelligence is about learning knowledge and being able to synthesise what you've learnt in an applicable manner, not about analysis of spatial relationships and the other MENSA jollies.

"Slow" pertains to your seeming ability to take on board knowledge that offends you ideologically. A reasonable scholar would never do anyhting that fundamentally foolish. You don't have to like what you're learning in order to benefit from what it can tell you.

 

[nino_savatte]

P.S. In the least obnoxious and petulent way possible, I'm willing to bet my IQ is a fair bit higher than yours, before you call me 'slow', old man!

What an arrogant wee cock ye are! No wonder ye've no engaged us, ye've got nothing but second hand love fir a rotten PM.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What an arrogant wee cock ye are! No wonder ye've no engaged us, ye've got nothing but second hand love fir a rotten PM.

Perhaps George is from that obnoxious section of the middle-class who believe that no "pleb" could possibly be as intelligent (or more) than they are.

I love it when these kiddies with little in the way of life experience trot out such foolishness. It reminds me of when my office was "blessed" with an Oxbridge "fast-track" recruit destined for "big things" at the Home Office. I had great fun letting him primp and pontificate, sharing his vat knowledge of how things should be, and bragging about his degree. I got him to list his academic qualifications for me (which consisted of O & A levels and a 2.2 in [IIRC] modern history), then I showed him mine . He was surprised that someone from the working classes could have more and better qualifications than he did, and yet not be a "high-flyer". Like most of the publically funded, privately educated middle classes he could not bring himself to consciously acknowledge that "the old school tie" is alive and well.

And I'll bet that George, the purportedly superior-IQ'd gawp, doesn't even know about MENSA's connections with the neo-fascist European right, quite aside from the fact that nobody has taken IQ seriously as a measure of base intelligence for at least the last 15 years.

 

[Skimix]

Workforce. I'm an administrator, my job is to organise the time and priorities of my co-workers and provide them with information to do their job. It's not a managerial function.

How is that not a management function?

Define risk. If you invest in (for example) a factory for £500,000 you have simply swapped one commodity (money) for another (factory). At the end of it you still own £500,000 worth of commodity. If the factory just sat there, you would continue to own a £500,000 commodity. You might as well say I'm taking a risk buying a new telly.

If you invest in a factory and don't make a return you are forgoing the return you could have made by investing elsewhere. You could have invested in something risk free (e.g. inflation linked government bonds) and made a return of x, therefore if you are going to take a risk and invest in a factory you should be able to get more than x, otherwise what idiot is going to buy a factory?