Poverty a price worth paying for the union.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/31160.shtml

Enlightened national self-interest is better for long-term altruism

Your Letters January 10 2005

I AM sure I was not the only SNP supporter who felt simultaneously
vindicated and indignant on reading Joan McAlpine's wonderful and insightful
article on Scotland's oil (January 6).

As she says, there were those who "were more concerned about preserving
their Westminster careers", who peddled a high-minded and misguided line
that we would be better to share the bounty. Well, as the Norwegians have
proved with sustained affluence and their tsunami donations, it seems that
enlightened national self-interest is a better basis for long-term altruism.

And, sadly, I have to report that the Labour Party version of altruism,
which sees it generous with other people's money to maintain its power and
its sinecures, is still with us and likely to resurface.

I offer as evidence the following conversation that I now have had with two
Labour MPs:

Jim Mather: "If I could give you a cast-iron proof that independence would
deliver higher growth, higher living standards, higher life-expectancy and
halt our decline in population, would you vote for it?"

Labour MP: "No!"

JM: "If we could prove it beyond doubt guaranteed by the IMF . . .

what then?"

Labour MP: "I still would stick with the Union."

JM: "Why?"

Labour MP: "Because we need to show solidarity and stick with the Union to
help the poor folk of Hackney, Liverpool and other parts of the UK."

Frankly, this response is as depressing as their previous cavalier attitude
to Scotland's oil. Rather than create a vibrant Scotland that could draw in
people from other parts of the UK and elsewhere and create more overall
demand, Labour MPs would rather us all take a vow of poverty.

As Joan McAlpine observed, such an attitude is revealing. Either Labour MPs
simply prefer constantly to treat the symptoms of economic
under-performance, are incapable of delivering better economic results or
they are both incapable and blasé about the need to deliver prosperity for
all. There can be no other explanations.

Scottish prosperity will only happen when committed people from all parties
work with the SNP to deliver that goal. Then, and only then, can we be
properly and sustainably generous and altruistic.

Jim Mather, MSP, shadow spokesman enterprise and the economy, The Scottish
Parliament.

From:	Ian Smith
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:51:07 -0000

Jackie, I appreciate your efforts to highlight Scottish current
affairs, even if some others don't.

.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:05:56 -0000

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
news:41f19f41$0$25918$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com...
> Jackie, I appreciate your efforts to highlight Scottish current affairs,
> even if some others don't.

Cheers, I just get a rush of blood to the head from time to time and think
it needs some new material for that stand up comedian Rab MacHenderson.

From:	Harold
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:34:19 +0000 (UTC)

Jackie Mulheron wrote:

> "Ian Smith" wrote in message
> news:41f19f41$0$25918$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com...
>
>>Jackie, I appreciate your efforts to highlight Scottish current affairs,
>>even if some others don't.
>
>
> Cheers, I just get a rush of blood to the head from time to time and think
> it needs some new material for that stand up comedian Rab MacHenderson.
>
>
Off to see Ken Dodd. Wonder if that was Rab's last tax case.

From:	Ian Smith
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:23:33 -0000

"Jackie Mulheron" wrote in message
news:35f4tsF4li60cU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ian Smith" wrote in message
> news:41f19f41$0$25918$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com...
>> Jackie, I appreciate your efforts to highlight Scottish current
>> affairs, even if some others don't.
>
> Cheers, I just get a rush of blood to the head from time to time and
> think it needs some new material for that stand up comedian Rab
> MacHenderson.
>

Don't worry, he's a southern bawbag, and no mistake. I will have
some fun with him.

.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

From:	Robert Henderson
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:43:52 +0000

In article , Donald McCaskey
writes
>>>Always has.
>>>
>> Learn some history. Go and find out what happened in the 1780s. Then
>> reflect on the how easily it could be denied them again. RH
>
>While both the UK and Ireland are part of the EU it can't.

WE leave the EU under my plan. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

From:	Angus Nicolson
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:46:23 +0000 (UTC)

"Robert Henderson" wrote in message
news:jVfm$TBokJ9BFwDJ@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article , Donald McCaskey
> writes
>>>>Always has.
>>>>
>>> Learn some history. Go and find out what happened in the 1780s. Then
>>> reflect on the how easily it could be denied them again. RH
>>
>>While both the UK and Ireland are part of the EU it can't.
>
>
> WE leave the EU under my plan. RH

As no-one listens to you anyway that's farting in the wind.

Angus

From:	Diversity Isn't A Codeword
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	24 Jan 2005 00:15:22 -0800

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <35d12rF4m4am6U1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
> >
> >Labour MP: "Because we need to show solidarity and stick with the
Union to
> >help the poor folk of Hackney, Liverpool and other parts of the UK."
> >
> >Frankly, this response is as depressing as their previous cavalier
attitude
> >to Scotland's oil. Rather than create a vibrant Scotland that could
draw in
> >people from other parts of the UK and elsewhere and create more
overall
> >demand, Labour MPs would rather us all take a vow of poverty.
>
> Mmm...a case of I'm alright Jock. Pure fantasy of course to imagine
> that Scotchland would be anything other than poverty-stricken outside
> the union. It would revert to its natural state: one of the poorest
> countries in Europe. RH

Yes, it would go back to the times of Robert Louis Steven - oh yeah,
Robert you may be interested to know that in his book 'Kidnapped' he
uses the word Scotch quite a lot.

From:	Robert Henderson
Subject:	I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:51:55 +0000

In article <35d12rF4m4am6U1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
writes
>
>Labour MP: "Because we need to show solidarity and stick with the Union to
>help the poor folk of Hackney, Liverpool and other parts of the UK."
>
>Frankly, this response is as depressing as their previous cavalier attitude
>to Scotland's oil. Rather than create a vibrant Scotland that could draw in
>people from other parts of the UK and elsewhere and create more overall
>demand, Labour MPs would rather us all take a vow of poverty.

Mmm...a case of I'm alright Jock. Pure fantasy of course to imagine
that Scotchland would be anything other than poverty-stricken outside
the union. It would revert to its natural state: one of the poorest
countries in Europe. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:51:24 -0000

From:	Ian Smith
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:16:54 -0000

"Robert Henderson" wrote in message
news:qIO0ojArxk8BFw7x@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <35d12rF4m4am6U1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>>
>>Labour MP: "Because we need to show solidarity and stick with the
>>Union to
>>help the poor folk of Hackney, Liverpool and other parts of the UK."
>>
>>Frankly, this response is as depressing as their previous cavalier
>>attitude
>>to Scotland's oil. Rather than create a vibrant Scotland that could
>>draw in
>>people from other parts of the UK and elsewhere and create more
>>overall
>>demand, Labour MPs would rather us all take a vow of poverty.
>
> Mmm...a case of I'm alright Jock. Pure fantasy of course to imagine
> that Scotchland would be anything other than poverty-stricken
> outside
> the union. It would revert to its natural state: one of the poorest
> countries in Europe. RH
> --
> Robert Henderson
> philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
> Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
> Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Better get that humble pie ready for the oven. I hope you're
hungry.

.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

From:	Robert Henderson
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:35:26 +0000

In article <35hnr8F4md8mbU1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
writes
>
>> Ireland is enjoying a temporary blip in its natural poverty because 1.
>> it is still receiving vast EU subsidies,
>
>"Subsidies" available to the UK as well. If only they played their cards
>better - like the French.
>
>> 2. it has free trade with
>> England
>
>Always has.
>
Learn some history. Go and find out what happened in the 1780s. Then
reflect on the how easily it could be denied them again. RH

>> and 3. considerable US subsidies. RH
>
>Oh please do tell. Is it US military bases like those in England?
>
A great deal of US effort to get US firms to invest there. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

From:	Donald McCaskey
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:24:13 -0000

"Robert Henderson" wrote in message
news:LAb86iA+Q88BFwfG@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <35hnr8F4md8mbU1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>>
>>> Ireland is enjoying a temporary blip in its natural poverty because 1.
>>> it is still receiving vast EU subsidies,
>>
>>"Subsidies" available to the UK as well. If only they played their cards
>>better - like the French.
>>
>>> 2. it has free trade with
>>> England
>>
>>Always has.
>>
> Learn some history. Go and find out what happened in the 1780s. Then
> reflect on the how easily it could be denied them again. RH

While both the UK and Ireland are part of the EU it can't.

>>> and 3. considerable US subsidies. RH
>>
>>Oh please do tell. Is it US military bases like those in England?
>>
> A great deal of US effort to get US firms to invest there. RH

Strictly speaking, it's a great deal of effort *in* the US to get US firms
to invest in Ireland. No different, just a wee bit more successful, than
the effort made by UK diplomats to get US companies to invest in the UK.
Hardly a crime, certainly not a criticism and Ireland should be applauded
for being ahead of the game in this area.

Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't as powerful as the
Vulcan groin kick but it is more politically correct!!

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:06:03 -0000

"Robert Henderson" wrote in message
news:LAb86iA+Q88BFwfG@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <35hnr8F4md8mbU1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>>
>>> Ireland is enjoying a temporary blip in its natural poverty because 1.
>>> it is still receiving vast EU subsidies,
>>
>>"Subsidies" available to the UK as well. If only they played their cards
>>better - like the French.
>>
>>> 2. it has free trade with
>>> England
>>
>>Always has.
>>
> Learn some history. Go and find out what happened in the 1780s. Then
> reflect on the how easily it could be denied them again. RH

Of course you are right, and I also forgot de Valera's silly little spat in
the 30's.

But things are far better now and on an equal footing.

>>> and 3. considerable US subsidies. RH
>>
>>Oh please do tell. Is it US military bases like those in England?
>>
> A great deal of US effort to get US firms to invest there. RH

Bully for them again. Are you jealous the UK doesn't do it?

From:	Robert Henderson
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:19:49 +0000

In article <35fp5kF4na0duU1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
writes
>> Mmm...a case of I'm alright Jock. Pure fantasy of course to imagine
>> that Scotchland would be anything other than poverty-stricken outside
>> the union. It would revert to its natural state: one of the poorest
>> countries in Europe. RH
>
>Like Ireland?
>

Ireland is enjoying a temporary blip in its natural poverty because 1.
it is still receiving vast EU subsidies, 2. it has free trade with
England and 3. considerable US subsidies. RH

--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: I'm alright Jock
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:41:01 -0000

"Robert Henderson" wrote in message
news:z5RiUACVA18BFwL7@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <35fp5kF4na0duU1@individual.net>, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>>> Mmm...a case of I'm alright Jock. Pure fantasy of course to imagine
>>> that Scotchland would be anything other than poverty-stricken outside
>>> the union. It would revert to its natural state: one of the poorest
>>> countries in Europe. RH
>>
>>Like Ireland?
>>
>
> Ireland is enjoying a temporary blip in its natural poverty because 1.
> it is still receiving vast EU subsidies,

"Subsidies" available to the UK as well. If only they played their cards
better - like the French.

> 2. it has free trade with
> England

Always has.

> and 3. considerable US subsidies. RH

Oh please do tell. Is it US military bases like those in England?

From:	Ian Johnston
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	22 Jan 2005 20:43:06 GMT

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:48:04 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
wrote:

: Poverty a price worth paying for the union.

Please take this crap out of ed.general

Ian

--

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:33:38 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:48:04 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
> wrote:
>
> : Poverty a price worth paying for the union.
>
> Please take this crap out of ed.general

Why? Do you own it or run the bar?

Or not just like what your reading so take an ostrich response?

From:	Ian Johnston
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	23 Jan 2005 14:21:01 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:33:38 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...

: > Please take this crap out of ed.general
:
: Why? Do you own it or run the bar?

If you want inconsequential and circular discussions with assorted
losers, there's always soc.culture.scottish. Your posting had no
direct Edinburgh relevance at all. Keep it somewhere appropriate.

I've noticed several of these crappy threads crossposted to ed.general
and other local groups recently. I preseume that's its because s.c.s,
scot.politics and so on have been so wrecked that there is no longer
any worthwhile (ie gratifing) response to be had there.

Ian

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:35:41 -0000

From:	Robert Peffers
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:08:55 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-3P90gYHdS28V@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:33:38 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
> wrote:
>
> : "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
> : news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...
>
> : > Please take this crap out of ed.general
> :
> : Why? Do you own it or run the bar?
>
> If you want inconsequential and circular discussions with assorted
> losers, there's always soc.culture.scottish. Your posting had no
> direct Edinburgh relevance at all. Keep it somewhere appropriate.
>
> I've noticed several of these crappy threads crossposted to ed.general
> and other local groups recently. I preseume that's its because s.c.s,
> scot.politics and so on have been so wrecked that there is no longer
> any worthwhile (ie gratifing) response to be had there.
>
> Ian
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Assume what you wish but the real culprits are such as you who, according to
your own headers, cross-posted this message to more than one group. These
may well be two, or more groups, that hold interest for you. However, the
overall effect is then further propagated thus:- Someone reads your post to
ed.general within scot.politics and who does not post to ed.general. This
person clicks on, "reply to group". This puts your headers into his/her news
reader and that means he/she is now replying to both groups. What, though,
happens if this person who reads your post in scot.politics has her/his
reader set to post to soc.culture.scottish, soc.culture.canada,
soc.culture.uncle tom-cobleigh-and-all? His reply, containing your original
post, comes up in all these groups. Now your post is propagated to several
groups that you do not read. Anyone making reply will send that reply to
every group that has been added. This will continue, ad infinitum. There are
several solutions provided. Do a little reading and you just may find these
solutions.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk

From:	Tamzin
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:55:28 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-3P90gYHdS28V@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:33:38 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
> wrote:
>
> : "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
> : news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...
>
> : > Please take this crap out of ed.general
> :
> : Why? Do you own it or run the bar?
>
> If you want inconsequential and circular discussions with assorted
> losers, there's always soc.culture.scottish. Your posting had no
> direct Edinburgh relevance at all. Keep it somewhere appropriate.
>
> I've noticed several of these crappy threads crossposted to ed.general
> and other local groups recently. I preseume that's its because s.c.s,
> scot.politics and so on have been so wrecked that there is no longer
> any worthwhile (ie gratifing) response to be had there.

I have to say that I agree with Ian. Ed.general is a most enjoyable ng
where the posters are able to debate controversial matters without any of
the vitriol which seems to characterise the huge cross-posted threads we
have recently been receiving (usually from an initial posting by Jackie
Mulheron). I don't see many of the ed.general regulars contributing to
these sagas so I assume that most are ignoring them. If so there is no need
for the threads to be posted in ed.general at all unless they concern topics
of direct interest to the city of Edinburgh. I personally read ed.general to
debate matters concerning the city and its environs and to talk to others
living in or near to it. I don't read it to get into debating Scottish
political issues although if these do crop up naturally then I find it
interesting to discuss them precisely because the participants are known to
me and I am curious about their opinions. These slanging matches with
people I don't know in other newsgroups are of no interest to me at all.

In a nutshell - I don't think that the denizens of ed.general are listening
to your ponderous threads and they certainly are not contributing (except
for asking you not to post the threads at all). What then is your purpose
in continuing to do so? Surely not just to be contrary and to rub our faces
in the fact that you have the power to inflict a lot of boring drivel on us?
That would be most impolite of you.

Tamzin
(Apologies to Bob Peffers as I have enjoyed talking to you but if I have to
sacrifice that in order never to see these threads again on ed.general then
I would willingly do so.)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004

From:	Robert Peffers
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:48:17 -0000

"Tamzin" wrote in message
news:ct0o8h$70t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
> news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-3P90gYHdS28V@localhost...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:33:38 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
>> wrote:
>>
>> : "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
>> : news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...
>>
>> : > Please take this crap out of ed.general
snip
> I have to say that I agree with Ian. Ed.general is a most enjoyable ng
> where the posters are able to debate controversial matters without any of
> the vitriol which seems to characterise the huge cross-posted threads we
> have recently been receiving (usually from an initial posting by Jackie
> Mulheron).

However, like every other un-moderated newsgroup, ed.general is an open
Usenet forum and anyone can subscribe to it.

> I don't see many of the ed.general regulars contributing to
> these sagas so I assume that most are ignoring them.

That is the proper line to take. If you are not interested in a particular
thread you ignore it and there is also the, "Mark conversation as read",
type of right click option too. One click and every post in the thread is
marked as read. One can also consign any particular poster they wish to the,
"Blocked senders", list.

> If so there is no need
> for the threads to be posted in ed.general at all unless they concern
> topics
> of direct interest to the city of Edinburgh. I personally read ed.general
> to
> debate matters concerning the city and its environs and to talk to others
> living in or near to it.

However, others may wish to read ed.general for other reasons. Some of us
even think Edinburgh is actually a part of Scotland. Some of us may have
family in Edinburgh, or been educated in the city or some may work in the
city.

> I don't read it to get into debating Scottish
> political issues although if these do crop up naturally then I find it
> interesting to discuss them precisely because the participants are known
> to
> me and I am curious about their opinions.

Edinburgh is the Capital City and thus political centre of Scotland.
Furthermore, many people, other than, " the regulars", probably have every
bit as much connections with the city as you have. Personally I spent the
bulk of my boyhood in Edinburgh and the rest of it in an area that is now
within the city limits. I still have many family connections there, on both
the spear side and the distaff sides of the family. I married and buried my
first wife in the city. One son was conceived and born in the city. My late
mother was Edinburgh born and both my father and mother worked the majority
of their lives in Edinburgh.

> These slanging matches with
> people I don't know in other newsgroups are of no interest to me at all.

The present, "slanging match", as you term it, came about because a
ed.general poster attempted to tell others to get out of ed.general. To make
matters worse he also took it upon himself to speak on behalf of you all.
Then, when challenged, he decided to be sarcastic and abusive. When he was
met with a little more than he bargained for he became even more abusive.
>
> In a nutshell - I don't think that the denizens of ed.general are
> listening
> to your ponderous threads and they certainly are not contributing (except
> for asking you not to post the threads at all).

What makes you think the people posting these threads are not also
subscribed to ed.general and the group is as much theirs as it is yours?

> What then is your purpose
> in continuing to do so? Surely not just to be contrary and to rub our
> faces
> in the fact that you have the power to inflict a lot of boring drivel on
> us?
> That would be most impolite of you.

Indeed it would be, if true, but that diagnosis is far from the truth.
No one, not even an ed.general regular poster, has the right to tell anyone
they cannot subscribe to ed.general. Not even an ed.general regular can
dictate what anyone can post and not even an ed.general regular can tell
people that they are not allowed to cross-post to more than one group.
Anyone who dares to do so finds themselves being told that fact. When the
ed.general regular has the sheer cheek to be abusive then, unfortunately,
the whole group, or in this case group of groups, gets the cross-posted,
"Slanging match", too. Just remember the actual truth is that, intentionally
or inadvertently, it is a matter of cross-posting so the original
cross-poster is the culprit and had to be posting to each group for the
thread to be readable in both..

The moral of the story is to be aware that Usenet is a free, open forum for
all. No-one has the right to tell another to leave a group if that person is
not breaking UseNet guidelines. Just because some person does not like the
contents of someone else's posts is not a good reason to tell them to get
out of, "Their", group. Such actions invariable are met with great
opposition by those who value free-speech.
As a matter of interest ed.general is described as, "General Interest,
Edinburgh systems". It is NOT, thus, a wee exclusive club for a select few
of ed.general's Regular Posters.
>
> Tamzin
> (Apologies to Bob Peffers as I have enjoyed talking to you but if I have
> to
> sacrifice that in order never to see these threads again on ed.general
> then
> I would willingly do so.)

No apology required, Tamzin, perhaps you might attempt a quiet word to the
poster that raised my hackles by attempting to tell me I could not post to
ed.general?
I formed the impression you were a very nice, and gentle, person who had a
heart in the right place. Very much my kind of people in fact. I would much
rather make friends with people than fight with them and have spent a
lifetime helping those less fortunate than myself, (a trait I practiced
around Edinburgh in the late 40s until 1962). I will not, though, be told I
cannot post to any Usenet group.

This old hack has been around computers since their very early beginnings,
(Well since around 1952). First one I worked on was built into two large
adjoining aircraft hanger type buildings. We calculated it used around the
same electricity load as the whole of the Edinburgh of those far off days.
That is when a bug in the system really was a wee insect getting between the
blades of electro-mechanical switches, (relays). We programmed it by
soldering wires across connecting points. It was all top secret in those
days. Edinburgh has changed somewhat in the years since then. Mind you I
don't think I could get lost there yet.
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004
>
>

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk

From:	Tamzin
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:47:14 -0000

"Robert Peffers" wrote in message
news:ct0v21$vd2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Tamzin" wrote in message
> news:ct0o8h$70t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

> The present, "slanging match", as you term it, came about because a
> ed.general poster attempted to tell others to get out of ed.general. To
make
> matters worse he also took it upon himself to speak on behalf of you all.
> Then, when challenged, he decided to be sarcastic and abusive. When he was
> met with a little more than he bargained for he became even more abusive.

I quite agree that no-one should tell you or anybody else not to post here.
In fact I find your posts both informative and insightful and I am quite
confident that we could debate opposing views without insulting or offending
each other and I am keen to hear more from you. I am however somewhat
exhausted by the many long, usually political, threads that have been
cross-posted to several Scottish newsgroups including ed.general in the last
couple of weeks because there are certain persons (I'm sure that you know
who they are!) who are very rude and answer everything with derogatory
comments. Many of them also do not snip their posts but quote back the
whole previous one with one word of their own added at the bottom. I know
that I could ignore the threads but I am inherently curious and I like to
check through all the threads in case a nugget of interest is hidden away in
there - that's how I found your posts.

Perhaps we have been spoilt in ed.general but we don't normally have these
sorts of problem and most of the regular posters (and we get new ones all
the time so please don't think new people are not welcome) know each other
well enough to indulge in jokes and banter on the group. We also have
regular meeting in the pub (I am determined to go to the next one). So we
are in the main a friendly, good-natured ng and the number of new posters
who appear from time to time suggests, I hope, that our camaraderie doesn't
scare newcomers away. So I accept that perhaps some of us are perhaps a
little precious about seeing what appear to be a whole raft of seemingly
hostile posters, some of whom seem to contribute only nastiness with no
substance at all. I think, however, that both I and the others who have
complained know at heart that we cannot (and probably would not even if we
could) prevent anyone from posting. the trouble is that because there has
been so much nastiness from some of these posters, who we haven't heard from
before on ed.general, we feel that we must have a moan or a rant about it
just to let off steam. I apologise whole-heartedly if I gave you the
impression that I was telling you not to post here because I wouldn't say
that to anyone unless they were a spam generator or something. I certainly
would not tell someone to get off the ng just because they disagreed with me
about something.

> > What then is your purpose
> > in continuing to do so? Surely not just to be contrary and to rub our
> > faces
> > in the fact that you have the power to inflict a lot of boring drivel on
> > us?
> > That would be most impolite of you.
>
> Indeed it would be, if true, but that diagnosis is far from the truth.
> No one, not even an ed.general regular poster, has the right to tell
anyone
> they cannot subscribe to ed.general. Not even an ed.general regular can
> dictate what anyone can post and not even an ed.general regular can tell
> people that they are not allowed to cross-post to more than one group.
> Anyone who dares to do so finds themselves being told that fact.

I agree - see my reply above as I will pass out if I have to type all that
again! Please also note that my remarks above about "boring drivel" are
aimed squarely at the various people who seem to contribute only insults and
flames to the threads concerned.

When the
> ed.general regular has the sheer cheek to be abusive then, unfortunately,
> the whole group, or in this case group of groups, gets the cross-posted,
> "Slanging match", too. Just remember the actual truth is that,
intentionally
> or inadvertently, it is a matter of cross-posting so the original
> cross-poster is the culprit and had to be posting to each group for the
> thread to be readable in both.

Yes - that's why I made a reference to the main original poster doing the
cross-posting in my original complaint. I realise that once it has happened
you need to x-post your responses as well to be sure that everyone
participating sees them. It's a cascading catastrophe.

> The moral of the story is to be aware that Usenet is a free, open forum
for
> all. No-one has the right to tell another to leave a group if that person
is
> not breaking UseNet guidelines. Just because some person does not like the
> contents of someone else's posts is not a good reason to tell them to get
> out of, "Their", group. Such actions invariable are met with great
> opposition by those who value free-speech.
> As a matter of interest ed.general is described as, "General Interest,
> Edinburgh systems". It is NOT, thus, a wee exclusive club for a select few
> of ed.general's Regular Posters.

Of course not. As I said above I think I am lucky to have found ed.general
because we have built up a nice friendly atmosphere. Anyone else who values
that would also find it interesting. Of course no-one can legislate on who
subscribes or what topics are debated but, as I stated above, if we are
tired of the types of response typically provoked by threads cross-posted to
other identified newsgroups then we are entitled to have our say and whinge
a bit if it makes us feel better to do so. After all, to take an extreme
example, if threads from alt.killandeatbabies.worshipbliar.misc were
habitually cross-posted and featured calls to arms and insulting comments
from the regulars there I think most subscribers to ed.general would be
complaining about the invasion.

> > (Apologies to Bob Peffers as I have enjoyed talking to you but if I have

> > to
> > sacrifice that in order never to see these threads again on ed.general
> > then
> > I would willingly do so.)
>
> No apology required, Tamzin, perhaps you might attempt a quiet word to the
> poster that raised my hackles by attempting to tell me I could not post to
> ed.general?

I will say again that I don't agree with anyone who told you personally not
to post to the ng. I can't speak for the intentions of another but I hope
that his reason for doing so was that the threads concerned were annoying
him for the reasons that they annoyed me and that you just happened to be in
the wrong place and the wrong time (figuratively speaking) when he decided
it was time to say what he felt.

> I formed the impression you were a very nice, and gentle, person who had a
> heart in the right place. Very much my kind of people in fact.

I certainly hope that I am that type of person although my impatience and
temper sometimes get the better of me. My lifelong battle is to learn to
control them instead of letting them control me.

I would much
> rather make friends with people than fight with them and have spent a
> lifetime helping those less fortunate than myself, (a trait I practiced
> around Edinburgh in the late 40s until 1962). I will not, though, be told
I
> cannot post to any Usenet group.

At the risk of repeating myself yet again - I agree :o) I am employed in
social housing at the moment which involves working on behalf of people who
have not had all the advantages that I have had. It can be very depressing
but also rewarding at times. Previous to that I worked in welfare rights
helping people in difficult circumstances. I've always had a bit of a
"there but for the grace of god" feeling about them. I am very much with
the person you should imagine that you were unborn and had no idea of the
circumstances into which they would be born and then design the sort of
tax/social welfare system that you thought would be best for you. I know
that Mike Holmes, for instance, will disagree with my insistence on
providing lots of state backup because I am so pessimistic and always
imagine that I might need it myself one day.

> This old hack has been around computers since their very early beginnings,
> (Well since around 1952). First one I worked on was built into two large
> adjoining aircraft hanger type buildings. We calculated it used around the
> same electricity load as the whole of the Edinburgh of those far off days.
> That is when a bug in the system really was a wee insect getting between
the
> blades of electro-mechanical switches, (relays). We programmed it by
> soldering wires across connecting points. It was all top secret in those
> days. Edinburgh has changed somewhat in the years since then. Mind you I
> don't think I could get lost there yet.

That sounds really fascinating. My idea of that time period is of colourless
austerity, of cold houses with inadequte heating, of dull food due to
rationing and of little in the way of fun, entertainment or technology. I
envisage it as a time where people were still trammelled in their
expectations by notions of social class and gender in particular.**

My parents were just toddlers in 1952. Both love computers now - they had
to get one each because they kept arguing over whose turn it was to use the
first one that they bought.

Tamzin

**Of course I realise that these are all cliches really.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004

From:	Robert Peffers
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:58:10 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-oRuiYuwO9DKo@localhost...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:48:04 UTC, "Jackie Mulheron"
> wrote:
>
> : Poverty a price worth paying for the union.
>
> Please take this crap out of ed.general
>
> Ian
>
>
> --
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Why? Is not ed.general a Usenet, un-moderated group? Have not you
cross-posted to more than one group?
In other words, Awa an bile yir heid.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk

From:	Ian Johnston
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	23 Jan 2005 14:18:38 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:58:10 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
wrote:

: Why? Is not ed.general a Usenet, un-moderated group? Have not you
: cross-posted to more than one group?
: In other words, Awa an bile yir heid.

If we want to discuss scottish politics we can join scot.politics.
What relevance do you think this has in ed.general? And quite apart
from the rules, what about manners?

Aefauldlie (scots for "pretentiously")

Ian

From:	Robert Peffers
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:51:30 -0000

t
"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-VQnIfjL1JMWd@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:58:10 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
> wrote:
>
> : Why? Is not ed.general a Usenet, un-moderated group? Have not you
> : cross-posted to more than one group?
> : In other words, Awa an bile yir heid.
>
> If we want to discuss scottish politics we can join scot.politics.

Indeed you can, and if you were even a tiny bit as smart as you think you
are, you would understand how to eliminate anything you did not wish to
read. You would also understand just how the messages from one group come to
be shown within any other group. In short, you could place any blame there
is upon the real culprits. ATM: you are one of these culprits as YOU are
cross-posting to both groups. Furthermore, are we to understand by your use
of the word, "we", you have been appointed as the official spokesperson of
ed.general?

> What relevance do you think this has in ed.general?
What relevance do you think, "This", has to scot.politics.
> And quite apart
> from the rules,

Now, just which rules would these be? Perhaps you might care to give us all
a reference to the URL where we may find these rules?

> what about manners?

Yes! Indeed! What about manners? "Let he who casts the first stone", and,
"people who live in glass houses", would seem appropriate.
>
> Aefauldlie (scots for "pretentiously")
Sarcism now? What next?

Just for you I will define that word.
sarcastic / adj.
sarcastically / adv.
[French sarcasme or Late Latin sarcasmus from late Greek sarkasmos, from
Greek sarkazo 'tear flesh', in late Greek 'gnash the teeth, speak bitterly',
from sarx sarkos 'flesh']

Oh! Dear! This is the person who has the temerity to speak to us about bad
manners? Just for your, very obvious, ignorance I shall define the word your
utter crass mind and lack of education allowed you to define as,
"pretentiously".

aefauld=simple, sincere, honest, faithful;single-minded.
aefauldly sincerely,honestly,faithfully.
These all derive from the WSaxon word anfeald.

I am sorry to say I cannot complement you upon your obviously abusive and
petty state of mind. Perhaps it has something to do with a closed mind and
sheltered academic life, (or to put it another way - get a life).

Now please go and learn all about Usenet rules, and Usenet's, "Netiquette".
Also check up on the settings available to everyone in their news reader by
way of blocked senders lists and filters. Pay particular attention to those
dealing with cross-posting.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk

> Ian

From:	Ian Johnston
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:08:15 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:51:30 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
wrote:

: t
: "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-VQnIfjL1JMWd@localhost...

: > If we want to discuss scottish politics we can join scot.politics.
:
: Indeed you can, and if you were even a tiny bit as smart as you think you
: are, you would understand how to eliminate anything you did not wish to
: read.

I shouldn't have to if the posters showed a little bit of courtesy.
Just because Usenet isn't policed doesn't mean that anyone should feel
free to do anything...

: You would also understand just how the messages from one group come to
: be shown within any other group. In short, you could place any blame there
: is upon the real culprits.

Like yourself, engaging in mass irrelevant cross posting?

: ATM: you are one of these culprits as YOU are
: cross-posting to both groups.

And you'll notice that I snipped out all the other groups, leaving
only a) the group I read and b) the group it should be in...

: Furthermore, are we to understand by your use
: of the word, "we", you have been appointed as the official spokesperson of
: ed.general?

No. Your lack of understanding of english is not, I am glad to say, my
problem.

: > What relevance do you think this has in ed.general?

: What relevance do you think, "This", has to scot.politics.

It appears to be scot.politics regulars who have decided to piss over
other news groups.

: > And quite apart
: > from the rules,
:
: Now, just which rules would these be? Perhaps you might care to give us all
: a reference to the URL where we may find these rules?

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

I suggest you do a quick google (have you heard of google?) for
"netiquette" and "charter". You would probably find subscribing to
net.announce.newusers for a while helpful too.

: Now please go and learn all about Usenet rules, and Usenet's, "Netiquette".

Is that a beam in your eye, or are you just pleased to see me.

: Also check up on the settings available to everyone in their news reader by
: way of blocked senders lists and filters. Pay particular attention to those
: dealing with cross-posting.

But why, my dear fellow, are you cross posting in the first place?
What makes you think that ed.general is a suitable place for your
musings? Do you even read ed.general?

Aefauldlie (scots for "Jings Maw. Is that no' PC Murdoch coming ben
the hoose?")

Ian

From:	Robert Peffers
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:16:49 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-tT74W7iuntrL@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:51:30 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
> wrote:
>
> : t
> : "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
> : news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-VQnIfjL1JMWd@localhost...
snip

> I shouldn't have to if the posters showed a little bit of courtesy.

Tell us all who appointed you as sole arbiter of the groups any individual
may post to? Your taste in groups is your own choice only. You cannot
dictate to others which groups they may read and post to. If a Scottish
dwelling North American native, who teaches physics, cares to read and post
to soc.culture Scottish, any native American newsgroup, scot.politics, a
physics group and ed.general it is none of your business. Neither is it
his/her business as to which groups you care to post into or read.

> Just because Usenet isn't policed doesn't mean that anyone should feel
> free to do anything.

They are not doing, "anything". At very least they are doing something that
upsets your very delicate sensibilities. However, it is not your place to
dictate to anyone what groups they may use.
>
> : You would also understand just how the messages from one group come to
> : be shown within any other group. In short, you could place any blame
> there
> : is upon the real culprits.
>
> Like yourself, engaging in mass irrelevant cross posting?

What is irrelevant to you may be relevant to others. Are you seriously
suggesting that if a subject does not meet your personal approval, or is
irrelevant to you, that means no one else is allowed to take an interest in
it? Again I ask, "who appointed you as sole arbiter ", on everyone's behalf?
>
> : ATM: you are one of these culprits as YOU are
> : cross-posting to both groups.
>
> And you'll notice that I snipped out all the other groups, leaving
> only a) the group I read and b) the group it should be in...

Obviously YOU did not notice that I also snipped out, (BTW: it is termed
trimming the headers), those I did not wish to post into. I do not, though,
presume to tell others which groups they may be allowed to post to, or read.
It is hardly my fault that you have a very narrow outlook. Mind you I would
never presume to tell you that you must widen your horizons. That is your
own personal choice. Feel free to exercise that free choice.
>
> : Furthermore, are we to understand by your use
> : of the word, "we", you have been appointed as the official spokesperson
> of
> : ed.general?
>
> No. Your lack of understanding of english is not, I am glad to say, my
> problem.

I am also rather glad you are not my authority on the English language.
Now, either you are saying you did not use the word, "we", that I objected
to further up-thread or your meaning is wrong. The COD defines the word as:-

we / pron. (obj. us; poss. our, ours)
1 (pl. of I2) used by and with reference to more than one person speaking or
writing, or one such person and one or more associated persons.
2 used for or by a royal person in a proclamation etc. and by a writer or
editor in a formal context.
3 people in general (cf. one pron. 2).
4 colloq. = I2 (give us a chance).
5 colloq. (often implying condescension) you (how are we feeling today?).
[Old English from Germanic]

Perhaps you may care to enlighten us as to which stated definition you
intended the, "we",to mean. When someone says something along the lines of,
"We in ed.general", it must be taken at face value that the person using the
word means more than one person in ed.general. I believe your contribution
ran along the lines of, "get this shit of ed.general", but should I be
bowing and touching my forelock?

>
> : > What relevance do you think this has in ed.general?
>
> : What relevance do you think, "This", has to scot.politics.
>
> It appears to be scot.politics regulars who have decided to piss over
> other news groups.
Had you not better check your facts? I have checked the facts. Let me put it
this way. If a message I am making reply to comes from more than one group
it is bad manners on my part not to answer in the groups posted, (unless I
have a particular reason not to post to a certain group). So just get this
fact right. I did not instigate any posts from ed.general. Obviously a
poster who uses at least both of these groups first cross-posted. After that
point it is simply that people just reply to the groups in their headers. So
just face the simple truth that the first post that contained both groups in
the headers is the person you should direct your protests at. That means a
poster in ed.general had to be a common poster in both groups. It does not
require a brilliant intellect to figure that out.
>
> : > And quite apart
> : > from the rules,
> :
> : Now, just which rules would these be? Perhaps you might care to give us
> all
> : a reference to the URL where we may find these rules?
>
> Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
>
> I suggest you do a quick google (have you heard of google?) for
> "netiquette" and "charter". You would probably find subscribing to
> net.announce.newusers for a while helpful too.
>
> : Now please go and learn all about Usenet rules, and Usenet's,
> "Netiquette".
>
> Is that a beam in your eye, or are you just pleased to see me.
Strange person? No one can see another on a text based medium such as
Usenet.
>
> : Also check up on the settings available to everyone in their news reader
> by
> : way of blocked senders lists and filters. Pay particular attention to
> those
> : dealing with cross-posting.
>
> But why, my dear fellow, are you cross posting in the first place?
May I return the complement and ask why you are cross-posting?

> What makes you think that ed.general is a suitable place for your
> musings? Do you even read ed.general?

What makes you think your postings have any relevance in any group? I only
read ed.general when a poster from there cross-posts to another group that I
do read. Has it not crossed your little mind the average person in each
group may have little interests in common but the first one who cross-posted
certainly had or the messages would not come to both groups.
>
>
> Aefauldlie (scots for "Jings Maw. Is that no' PC Murdoch coming ben
> the hoose?")
Another idiotic response from, guess what, an idiot. What else can we
expect, though, except abuse from such as you.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:43:13 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-tT74W7iuntrL@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:51:30 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
> wrote:
>
> : t
> : "Ian Johnston" wrote in message
> : news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-VQnIfjL1JMWd@localhost...
>
> : > If we want to discuss scottish politics we can join scot.politics.
> :
> : Indeed you can, and if you were even a tiny bit as smart as you think
> you
> : are, you would understand how to eliminate anything you did not wish to
> : read.
>
> I shouldn't have to if the posters showed a little bit of courtesy.

Coutesy? So we have to ask your permission before posting to Ed.general?
Again, do you own it to make such a point?

> Just because Usenet isn't policed doesn't mean that anyone should feel
> free to do anything...

So do what most other people do when they aren't interested in a subject -
ignore it.

> : You would also understand just how the messages from one group come to
> : be shown within any other group. In short, you could place any blame
> there
> : is upon the real culprits.
>
> Like yourself, engaging in mass irrelevant cross posting?

Who made you the judge of that - apart from yourself?

> : ATM: you are one of these culprits as YOU are
> : cross-posting to both groups.
>
> And you'll notice that I snipped out all the other groups, leaving
> only a) the group I read and b) the group it should be in...

Only after Bob pointed out your faux pas.

> : Furthermore, are we to understand by your use
> : of the word, "we", you have been appointed as the official spokesperson
> of
> : ed.general?
>
> No. Your lack of understanding of english is not, I am glad to say, my
> problem.

What was that you said about "manners"?

> : > What relevance do you think this has in ed.general?
>
> : What relevance do you think, "This", has to scot.politics.
>
> It appears to be scot.politics regulars who have decided to piss over
> other news groups.

No, posted a news item on politics in Scotland which, as far as I am aware,
would involve Edinburgh.

> : > And quite apart
> : > from the rules,
> :
> : Now, just which rules would these be? Perhaps you might care to give us
> all
> : a reference to the URL where we may find these rules?
>
> Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
>
> I suggest you do a quick google (have you heard of google?) for
> "netiquette" and "charter". You would probably find subscribing to
> net.announce.newusers for a while helpful too.

And where does it say that you decide what is and is not on the agenda for
ed.general?

> : Now please go and learn all about Usenet rules, and Usenet's,
> "Netiquette".
>
> Is that a beam in your eye, or are you just pleased to see me.
>
> : Also check up on the settings available to everyone in their news reader
> by
> : way of blocked senders lists and filters. Pay particular attention to
> those
> : dealing with cross-posting.
>
> But why, my dear fellow, are you cross posting in the first place?
> What makes you think that ed.general is a suitable place for your
> musings? Do you even read ed.general?

Covered already.

> Aefauldlie (scots for "Jings Maw. Is that no' PC Murdoch coming ben
> the hoose?")

Your slip and real motivation could be showing with your cringe there.

From:	Jackie Mulheron
Subject:	Re: Example of how idiotic the unionist position is
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:55 -0000

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-VQnIfjL1JMWd@localhost...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:58:10 UTC, "Robert Peffers"
> wrote:
>
> : Why? Is not ed.general a Usenet, un-moderated group? Have not you
> : cross-posted to more than one group?
> : In other words, Awa an bile yir heid.
>
> If we

Who is the "we"? Is the "Ian Johnston" poster more than one person?

> want to discuss scottish politics we can join scot.politics.

So there are no politics in Edinburgh? No Scottish Parliament? No debate
about it's status vis a vis devolved or independent capital?

> What relevance do you think this has in ed.general? And quite apart
> from the rules,

No FAQ as far I can see. and this on Google:

"Description: General interest, Edinburgh systems."
"Access: . Public - Usenet"

> what about manners?

Ah yes, what about manners - "Please take this _crap_ out of ed.general".

> Aefauldlie (scots for "pretentiously")

You were wanting "manners"?