4-09-2018 5-21-48 PM.jpgOriginally Posted by scottish-guy
4-09-2018 5-21-48 PM.jpg
scottish-guy (September 4th, 2018)
I do love what appears to be Rees-Mogg's complete contempt for the female voter. He seems to believe that the role of the wife is to be a breeding machine, the results looked after by a female nanny and the housework done by female servants. Sadly my one-room walk up with cold water flat here in Swansea doesn't support servants. Heavens, I still rely on a 56K dial-up modem for my Internet access
The idea, Frequent, is to do your Googling before you post.
I thoroughly recommend that approach and given the preponderance of nit-pickers on here it usually pays dividends.
You mean illustrating that the population of Scotland is 5/8 the population of London rather than closer to 3/8? In the grand scheme of things that's barely outside the margin of error, and certainly doesn't vitiate my point that the population of Scotland simply isn't worth worrying about. It's like Pattaya to those of us who live in Bangkok. You know it's there; it just doesn't matter
Oh dear - you said one third didn't you?
Well, 1/3 is 3/9ths not 3/8ths.
It may seem a small fraction of a difference, but when translated into actual numbers the scale of the error is stark:
As I originally said, for Scotland to have 1/3 the population of London as you claimed, the London population would need to be almost 16 million. The fact is it's just over half of that.
A huge error - man up and admit it.
You are arithmetically correct but that is irrelevant in the context of the utter pointlessness of worrying about the Scots, which was my entire thesis. Apart from whisky and perhaps smoked salmon, why would Scotland be missed if it fell off the edge of the world tomorrow. New Zealand is in the same position, and just as irrelevant (you'll note my even-handed offensiveness to both arse-ends of the world)
You should have stopped right there
In world terms, few small countries are significant but your initial comparison was with England - so can I refer you to the 4 examples I gave in my initial response?
If you can tell me where else England is going to source her electricity, gas, oil and water from (in none of which is England self-sufficient) or where else she intends to place rump UK's WMD, then we can talk.
Meanwhile some of us have a job to go to - toodle-oo the noo!!
Where's the fun in that? You seem to be under the illusion that anything any of us say will make the slightest difference. You should join Smiles and cdnmatt in their fascination with Trump, another topic where neither they, nor you, nor I can make the slightest difference
Look, if we all confined ourselves to commenting only on things we have any expertise in, or on matters which we can effect, or even if we just took into account the level of interest with which our comments are received, then the author of post #20 would have absolutely nothing to say.
Hmmm, you may have hit on something
As to sources of the things you mention, that's all just Ceteris paribus; the same sort of argument that was running 100+ years ago which suggested the streets of London would soon be impassable because of all the horse shit there would be. To take just one of those four - water. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, apart from the aesthetics involved, why we cannot drink recycled, purified sewage. It can certainly be used in all sorts of processes, assuming we have the will. In America this process is known as "toilet-to-tap" - or as the Americans put it, "terlit-to-tap"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote