Haiti
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 84 GPz750 Turbo
Next: Ping: Vass
From: 'Hog on 18 Jan 2010 15:38 Andy Bonwick wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:13:57 +0000, DozynSleepy > <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: > >> Leszek Karlik wrote: >> snip >>> >>> I know, facts only stand in the way of a good emotional outcry. >>> "Think of the Chernobyls, we're all gonna die, aaaeeieieie!" >>> >>> Sigh. >>> >> >> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" test. >> Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered station at the >> end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate dirtiness, nuclear >> because of it's long term dirtiness. > > The trouble with nuclear power plants is that you're relying on > skilled engineers operating the plant and in a lot of cases they're > running minutes away from a disaster. > > I love nuclear power but I wouldn't live within 50 miles of it unless > I really had no choice. I refer Sir to my comments about safe design. It's perfectly feasible to build a reactor which relies on active controls to avoid carpet bombing a large part of England. It's also feasible to build one that does it passively. But as you and I know, it isn't possible (now) for any British company to design and build a nuke. -- Hog
From: Andy Bonwick on 18 Jan 2010 15:59 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:38:26 -0000, "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: snip> >But as you and I know, it isn't possible (now) for any British company to >design and build a nuke. I think you'll find that Rolls Royce design (well, sort of design) and build very good nukes but they don't go in anyones back yard. Where do I collect my money for winning that one?
From: J�r�my on 18 Jan 2010 16:01 "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:4b54a1a4$0$2522$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk: > ginge wrote: > >> I may be less than sensitive about such matters, but one thing I've >> never really understood is why mass graves are seen as acceptable, >> but building an enormous funeral pyre and burning a heap of corpses >> at the same time, isn't. >> >> I'd prefer to be burnt than later dug up by foxes. > > So that some bunch of sick fuckers can come along later and dig you > up? as happened with many a mass war grave. Well, yes, actually. As the ICRC points out in the page I linked earlier, it's important to be able to identify the dead once the emergency phase is over. If you've meanwhile lost or destroyed the bodies that may cause long term psychological and legal problems for the people who survived. -- Jeremy R1200RT
From: Andy Bonwick on 18 Jan 2010 16:27 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:01:23 GMT, "J�r�my" <a(a)b.com> wrote: >"'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote in >news:4b54a1a4$0$2522$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk: > >> ginge wrote: >> >>> I may be less than sensitive about such matters, but one thing I've >>> never really understood is why mass graves are seen as acceptable, >>> but building an enormous funeral pyre and burning a heap of corpses >>> at the same time, isn't. >>> >>> I'd prefer to be burnt than later dug up by foxes. >> >> So that some bunch of sick fuckers can come along later and dig you >> up? as happened with many a mass war grave. > >Well, yes, actually. As the ICRC points out in the page I linked earlier, >it's important to be able to identify the dead once the emergency phase >is over. If you've meanwhile lost or destroyed the bodies that may cause >long term psychological and legal problems for the people who survived. Stop now. You should have realised Hog was trolling as soon as he mentioned war graves. I'm surprised that he hasn't complained about the government promising money towards the upkeep of Auschwitz rather than pissing it up the wall more commonly known as NHS contractors but give it time and he'll be on the case.
From: Wicked Uncle Nigel on 18 Jan 2010 16:27
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> typed >Andy Bonwick wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:13:57 +0000, DozynSleepy >> <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Leszek Karlik wrote: >>> snip >>>> >>>> I know, facts only stand in the way of a good emotional outcry. >>>> "Think of the Chernobyls, we're all gonna die, aaaeeieieie!" >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>> >>> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" test. >>> Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered station at the >>> end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate dirtiness, nuclear >>> because of it's long term dirtiness. >> >> The trouble with nuclear power plants is that you're relying on >> skilled engineers operating the plant and in a lot of cases they're >> running minutes away from a disaster. >> >> I love nuclear power but I wouldn't live within 50 miles of it unless >> I really had no choice. > >I refer Sir to my comments about safe design. > >It's perfectly feasible to build a reactor which relies on active controls >to avoid carpet bombing a large part of England. It's also feasible to >build one that does it passively. Of course it is, you idiot. Build it in Scotland. NEXT! -- Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest" "Environmentally, it is our duty to re-use our plastic bags. To suffocate our children" - Frankie Boyle. |