Plusnet wrote:
> In article <lnssm4dv3asmc1b14slsm0e9nm3dhu5pvf>,
> jolonergan says...
> Jo,
>
> Make sure that you are the first to market a range of cofins with very
> powerful springs built into the base.
>
> It's your idea & it would be a shame to let someone else exploit it.
>
This is a bit drastic, isn't it? Are all the protesters prepared to die
very soon in order to make this happen?

Marjorie wrote:
> badriya wrote:
> Are all the protestors who take this position prepared to give up the
> use of planes from now on?
>
> The Times had a nice little piece about how Emma Thomson was pledging
> her support for the anti-runway campaign and then miraculously appeared
> on the other side of the Atlantic a day or two later for the Golden
> Globe Awards.

I don't know about ET but I don't think but I don't think it is
impossible to oppose the third runway at Heathrow or even airport
expansion in general and not fly oneself occasionally. Clearly if you
fly out to a holiday home every fortnight there is a high degree of
hypocrisy. But if, say, you restrict yourself to one return flight a
year or two where there is no reasonable alternative is that hypocritical?

Colin

On Jan 15, 5:13 pm, Marjorie <dontusethisaddr>
wrote:
> Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> This is a bit drastic, isn't it? Are all the protesters prepared to die
> very soon in order to make this happen?

Protesters don't wait to be dead to do this sort of thing:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampy

Jo Lonergan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:36:22 +0100, badriya <badriya> wrote:
>
>> Somehow the idea of taking people's homes now to put
>> runways back doesn't feel good. Might some be where the new runway
>> is supposed to go?
>>>
> Yebbut, they're going to bulldoze whole villages to build the new
> runway, anyway.

only one village

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> Marjorie wrote:
>
> I don't know about ET but I don't think but I don't think it is
> impossible to oppose the third runway at Heathrow or even airport
> expansion in general and not fly oneself occasionally. Clearly if you
> fly out to a holiday home every fortnight there is a high degree of
> hypocrisy. But if, say, you restrict yourself to one return flight a
> year or two where there is no reasonable alternative is that hypocritical?
>


I should think most film stars of ET's standing will fly regularly as a
matter of course.

And as for the rest of us, if, as you say, there's no reasonable
alternative to flying sometimes, then maybe there's no reasonable
alternative to having adequate runways? If we fly, we contribute to some
degree to the demand for runways and it could be construed as
hypocritical to object to their construction.

It might, though, be defensible to object to the new Heathrow plans if
there was a preferred alternative site for extra runway capacity in
another part of the country. I think transport experts often overlook
the fact that many of those who travel to London by plane or by train
are doing so only in order to get out of it again as soon as they can.
I've sometimes flown from London when I'd have preferred to use a
regional airport, but couldn't get the flights.
I haven't followed the campaign closely enough to know whether this is
the case, or whether they're simply saying "no more runways anywhere",
which is probably no more realistic than saying "no more roads anywhere."

Marjorie wrote:

>Colin Blackburn wrote:
>> ralphb wrote:

>>> If they glass in their outdoor garden, to make a winter garden, does
>>> it then become indoors in the view of the anti-smoking legislation?
>>
>> Yes it would if full glassed in. There has to be a certain degree of
>> openness for it to be outdoors. Whether this is enshrined in legislation
>> or interpreted by council officers I don't know.
>>
>I think it has to have at least one wall missing.
>
More than that. From
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20063368.htm

> (2) For the purposes of section 2 of the Act, premises are substantially enclosed if they have a ceiling or roof but there is—
>
>(a) an opening in the walls; or
>
>(b) an aggregate area of openings in the walls,
>
>which is less than half of the area of the walls, including other structures that serve the purpose of walls and constitute the perimeter of the premises.
>
>(3) In determining the area of an opening or an aggregate area of openings for the purposes of paragraph (2), no account is to be taken of openings in which there are doors, windows or other fittings that can be opened or shut.
>
>(4) In this regulation "roof" includes any fixed or moveable structure or device which is capable of covering all or part of the premises as a roof, including, for example, a canvas awning.

Chris

In article <bHIbl.20632$Sp5.14557>, Steve
Hague generously decided to share with us..

Snippetry..

> The first house we bought in Cornwall had a Rayburn, which is the working
> class version of the Aga. It would burn anything and frequently did, for
> there was no such thing as green back then. It did most of our cooking, kept
> half the house warm and dried the washing in winter. We heard that the
> people who bought our house had it removed. Heathens!

In my house at the moment, all the heating (15 radiators), all the hot
water and most of the cooking is provided by an elderly De Dietrich
multifuel stove.. currently it is running on coal (uses about a ton
every 2 months) but it has also been run on logs (uses a couple of old
laundry baskets full a day) and on all the scrap timber that was
provided when we had our roof done last year (mostly tile batten sawed
into foot long bits and stuck into old coal sacks, used about two and a
half sacks a day)..

It seems to have no problem in keeping the whole house heated to about
68-70F and providing us with sufficient hot water for all our needs..

If we actually get a summer this year, I suspect we will be using logs
more often as I have a ready supply of timber in the sixteen or so
acres of woodland that surround the house on three sides.. I have a
chainsaw and I'm not afraid to use it.. :-)

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:11:16 +0000, Colin Blackburn
<news> wrote:
>
>When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we need
>to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"

Which we could abbreviate to warepatyde, since wrptd doesn't exactly
trip off the tongue

lff

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:11:16 +0000, Colin Blackburn
> <news> wrote:
>> When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we need
>> to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"
>
> Which we could abbreviate to warepatyde, since wrptd doesn't exactly
> trip off the tongue

I'll never umbrella that.

After a hard day on the farm, Ralph B jumped off the tractor to write:

>On Jan 15, 2:22 pm, Sebastian Lisken <Sebastian.Lis...@Uni-Bielefeld-
>deletethis.de> wrote:
>
>When I read that Grauniad article a couple of days ago I remember
>thinking that a similar argument could probably be made against
>refrigerators. Since they run all the time, they are likely
>responsible for the majority of domestic electicity consumption. The
>poor don't have them (think global poor, not western european poor).
>They aren't even really needed in Winter - we just keep running for
>convenience.
>
>However, I'm keeping my fridge, and I suspect the Home Counties set
>will be wanting to keep their Agas. Can a much stronger case be made
>for one or the other?

Not just in the Home Counties. When I lived in the depths of West
Somerset I had a solid-fuel Aga, and I loved it. If I ever have a big
enough kitchen in the future, I would have one again.

In article <ae98bc78-1701-4433-9f6b-a36dfba22944
@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, google81 says...
> On Jan 14, 5:37 pm, "Dave xxx" <d...@nospam.cooon> wrote:
>
> Reading that gave me an idea: What about an underground airport? Cut a
> couple of long, wide tunnels in the chalk cliffs under Kent (see where
> the idea came from?) and let the aeroplanes fly in and out like
> swallows. True, it'd be a tricky approach, but they all land by
> computer nowadays don't they? No noise to bother the Little
> Englanders. And the passengers could get to and from London by using
> that shiney new high-speed train that runs through Folkstone.
>
Why not apply this at Heathrow?
Remove villages, build runway, cover with earth, replace villages on
top.
Repeat for existing runways & sell the resulting land as prime building
plots - very handy for the airport, no overhead traffic.

Alternatively, if civil aviation were to adopt aircraft carrier methods
- catapult launch and arrestor-wire landings - you could sell off half
of Heathrow's existing site and still triple the number of aircraft
movements.

"Jo Lonergan" <jolonergan> wrote in message
news:5pvf
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:49:31 +0000, Al Menzies <al>
> wrote:
>
>>They should turn the field into a humanist burial ground. That should
>>slow things up a bit when they want to dig it up.
>
> What a brilliant idea! You are clever! And when they do build it our
> bodies
> could rise from our graves (though actually I'd rather be composted) and
> tangle
> ourselves up in the aircrafts' engines. Hah! That will show them!

You would need a licese because you can't just dump bodies anywhere (Elf &
Safety and a lot more besides, innit). You ae morel ikely to planning
permission for a new runw.... Oh the did already.

"Marjorie" <dontusethisaddress> wrote in message
news:nz2d
> badriya wrote:
> Are all the protestors who take this position prepared to give up the use
> of planes from now on?
>
> The Times had a nice little piece about how Emma Thomson was pledging her
> support for the anti-runway campaign and then miraculously appeared on the
> other side of the Atlantic a day or two later for the Golden Globe
> Awards.

Perhaps you misunderstand her motives. Another runway means more of the hoi
polloi in the queue to get through security, longer distances to the gate.
Better to limit the number of runways.

"badriya" <badriya> wrote in message
news:ghkt
> What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
> 3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it. I think Susan
> Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
> than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
> cabinet apparently.

Susan Kramer's constituents live under the inbound flight path in Richmond,
but presumably most of them travel into London to better paid jobs than
those out at Heathrow. I am sure Ms Kramer has made an objective assessment
regarding the national interest - not.


> [..]
>
> Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
> It did once apparently but another time didn't help.

It won't make a blind bit of difference whether the plot of land is owned by
one objector or hundreds. They will use the same compulsory purchase
arrangement. If the landowners have properly registered title then the
government will collect some stamp duty but in the whole scheme of things it
is an irrelevance.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:40:11 -0800 (PST), ralphb
<rbearpark.nospam> wrote:

>>
>> > Perhaps we need to introduce a delimiter character to indicate
>> > "umbrella" should be read literally?
>>
>> When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we need
>> to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"
>
>Maybe we could add a "#undefine umbrella" prior to its use to mean a
>real (but not necessarily effective) water-repellent parasol-type
>device ... ?
A real umbrella?