Poly no maths wrote:
libel and general crap snipped

Mentally deranged, or what!

Remind us please, what were you saying about libel in your 'Formal
Warning' earlier today?
--
....(_!_)...

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:21:34 +0100, "Polymath"
wrote:
Pound, Money = sort of like a dollar, but twice as valuable
today: $1.77 (down 10% since Christmas shopping)
and more robust.
What a con job.
100 years ago, today: $4.87
40 years ago, today: $2.80
30 years ago, today: $2.20
20 years ago, today: $1.39
10 years ago, today: $1.60

Robust must mean slumped by 63% - One Time Constant?

Any boost of some 11% in the past decade certainly has to be
attributable to the White House running the printing presses full
steam.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:12:28 GMT,

(ZZZZPK ) wrote:

So... in a NON-POLITICAL way please describe those people of the mid
to late 1700's who went around shooting soldiers who wore REDCOATS and
GOVERNED a land the that was at one stage part of the GREAT BRITISH
EMPIRE and had as one of its main cities BOSTON ?

Hmmm,

The British Empire must, as one would expect, have an Emperor, and
particularly a British Emperor. If we scan the list of Royals over
time, certainly Britain had an Emperor (Carausius) during the Roman
era (hardly worth claiming as being British when you bend your knee to
Rome and that empire didn't even claim Wales).

Nearly as far back ago, there was a ship called Emperor.

There are a specie of penguins called Emperor.

Almost 100 years ago there was a George who went by Emperor and like
our own was numbered. But it wasn't George Trois, in fact it was
suggested that this George adopt the title "Emperor of the British and
Hanoverian Dominions," but he refused (and this suggestion only came
after 1802).

If we rummage around the list of Monarchs, then we find our recent
George, and Edward before him were "Emperors" and only of India. The
first "Emperor" was in fact an Empress (of that same named India).

So, by the question above, it must be discerned that in fact no one
ever took up arms against a GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE nor a MODEST BRITISH
EMPIRE nor even a PIDDLIN' BRITISH EMPIRE. So this usage of BRITISH
EMPIRE must in some sense mean the East India Trading Company (since
the only monarchs called Emperor/Empress are uniquely associated with
that sole state in our antipodes. The East India Trading Company held
property in Hudson Bay, so to put this presumed conflict into the
desired NON-POLITICAL way
Canadian (the people, not the political country) Consumers
revolting against a commercial entity - eh? What a bunch of hosers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

We, or more correctly our forefathers, were patriots as far as we were
concerned, revolutionists, ingrates, and other labels as perceived by the
British oppressors.

In this case I can give you a few for this situation ; terrorist, raghead,
Muslim extremist. Take your pick.


"ZZZZPK "

s.it.net wrote in message ...
"Fred W4JLE" wrote:

: Actually $1.76 as of today, but used to be worth $2.40.
: Any country too politically correct to call a terrorist a terrorist is
not
: long for the world.


So... in a NON-POLITICAL way please describe those people of the mid
to late 1700's who went around shooting soldiers who wore REDCOATS and
GOVERNED a land the that was at one stage part of the GREAT BRITISH
EMPIRE and had as one of its main cities BOSTON ?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:56:13 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:
In this case I can give you a few for this situation ; terrorist, raghead,
Muslim extremist. Take your pick.

The raghead is the one at the right in:
http://www.hantmans.com/media/040515...6_rgbHIRES.jpg
the other two are probably the remaining names.

Fred W4JLE wrote:
Actually $1.76 as of today, but used to be worth $2.40.
Any country too politically correct to call a terrorist a terrorist is not
long for the world.


Tis a real shame the spawn of a great people that endured so much with the
"stiff upper lip" are a bunch of wimps!

"Polymath" wrote in message
...


Pound, Money = sort of like a dollar, but twice as valuable and more

robust.




Anyone who underestimates the toughness, tenacity, and resilience of the
British people is a fool. The Irish Republican Army waged a terrorist
campaign against London for years without having any effect
whatsoever on British resolve. While I'm no fan of the British,
I'd like to see some of our whining, sweat-drenched, paranoid
patriots make a stab at doing even half as well.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:21:34 +0100, "Polymath"
wrote:

Pound, Money = sort of like a dollar, but twice as valuable

today: $1.77 (down 10% since Christmas shopping)

and more robust.

What a con job.
100 years ago, today: $4.87
40 years ago, today: $2.80
30 years ago, today: $2.20
20 years ago, today: $1.39
10 years ago, today: $1.60

Robust must mean slumped by 63% - One Time Constant?

Any boost of some 11% in the past decade certainly has to be
attributable to the White House running the printing presses full
steam.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The U.K. is in much better shape financially than
the United States. It's in most country's interest
to keep their currency cheap in relation to the
dollar. They can sell more widgets that way.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:44:27 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

It's in most country's interest
to keep their currency cheap in relation to the
dollar.

Hi Tom,

Seems to be the white house monetary policy too (I wonder if they know
we use the dollar?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:44:27 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:


It's in most country's interest
to keep their currency cheap in relation to the
dollar.


Hi Tom,

Seems to be the white house monetary policy too (I wonder if they know
we use the dollar?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
I think the only currency they understand
is oil, which just appreciated mightily against the
dollar.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:22:57 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:44:27 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:


It's in most country's interest
to keep their currency cheap in relation to the
dollar.


Hi Tom,

Seems to be the white house monetary policy too (I wonder if they know
we use the dollar?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
I think the only currency they understand
is oil, which just appreciated mightily against the
dollar.
73,

Hi Tom,

Funny about that. Before the election, the cost of Gas taxes pushing
a gallon over $2 would cripple us. Instead we pay $2.50 and the
economy is just fine thank you and the arabs get more than the tax
revenue we didn't add. Let's see, we pay them more, take in less tax,
and add a 10 year off-budget item of $100 Billion. Sounds like
Osama's slush fund is doing better than the market. Could be the
golden investment for social security diversion if you didn't end up
in a Git'mo rest home for the aged financial supporters of terrorism.
Who knows? Filling up your gas tank could get you to the tropics
sooner than you might imagine. Flown there on 'Merican Oil? (Such
irony anticipated in the goofs there too.)

A trillion here, and a trillion there, and soon you are talking about
real money.... Let's see, if a million monkeys printed a million
dollars a decade, how much would a banana cost by the next election?
There's one chimp that doesn't care.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC