It seems to me that for the last 20 years or so, Britain has created a sort of unwritten socio-economic contract, in which the rich generated wealth by vacuuming world cash through financial markets and giving it out as welfare handouts to the underclass, to prevent unrest and keep the internal consumption going (the City high-fliers do not buy cheap plasmas, and after Mrs. Thatcher effectively shut down Britain's heavy industry and then the rest of manufacturing industry fled abroad, there is preciously little wealth generating jobs left in the UK). Essentially, the beautiful eloi (sp?) worked and shared their wealth with the ugly lazy and poor morlocks.
Now that this steady flow of money into the economy has stopped due to the financial markets' crisis and the eloi are closing down the gravy tap by the "necessary cuts" (it's funny how the lucky, privileged rich do not see they are effectively breaking that contract that allowed them to keep/attain their position, and instead see it as justice against the lazy welfare underclass), what is the chance of the morlocks rising up and eating them?
Discuss.
Financial sector profits are back, and I'd assume the tax revenues are too. Order is restored?
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/the_future_of_manufacturing.html
The pdf files expose some fundamental misconceptions about UK manufacturing industry, which continues it's long-term growth and remains the 6th largest in the world.
Our problem, IMO, is that when bumper profits and taxes were coming in from the financial sector (due to the financial bubble), we went on a spending spree.
Here is a 2007 article from the Guardian about this problem :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/20/economics
In that year the government should have been running a substantial surplus, instead we were already moving towards a £40 bn deficit...........in the best of times!
Quote from: alfred russel on March 31, 2011, 02:14:32 AM
Financial sector profits are back, and I'd assume the tax revenues are too. Order is restored?
Not sure. I don't know the details, but I'd assume taxes in the UK come from domestic consumption, not from the financial sector (which can hire good tax advisers to implement some creative tax structure to avoid paying taxes in the UK).
So if the welfare is cut down, the consumption will be too - effectively preventing the recovery of the economy and creating massive social unrest.
It's actually interesting how in retrospect the German economy - for so many years called the "sick man of Europe" - proves to be the right model, based on domestic production (and hefty foreign trade surplus) coupled with some of the best social protections, ensuring solid redistribution of goods (not to mention making sure tax havens are not a valid option).
Compare this to the UK model, where the tory government hires, as its "fiscal responsibility expert", a guy who got rich on a store chain by avoiding paying taxes in the UK thanks to his Monaco-resident wife.
Britain's wealth today comes from artistic/ intellectual properties.
German economy has a massive population and country size, lotsa' natural resources, and east euro colonies.
Quote from: citizen k on March 31, 2011, 04:24:51 AM
Britain's wealth today comes from artistic/ intellectual properties.
:lol:
Seconded RH's comment about manufacturing.
Radio 4's Money Programme had a debate between bankers and manufacturers about their respctive value to the economy earlier this week. If I'd listened properly, I'm sure I'd have an opinion :P
To answer the question, we're not doomed and we're far better off crawling slowly out of this dip than the sudden swing to the better and back in the 80s.
Manufacturing is still there, trouble is its not the mass employer it once was. I remember hearing a interesting fact the other week, the British car industry produces as many cars today as it did 40 years ago despite its seeming decline. Automisation means even the biggest and most succesful factories, like Sunderland Nissan, only employ 5000 people or so. Which leaves a lot of people without many work options.
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:43:16 AM
Manufacturing is still there, trouble is its not the mass employer it once was.
That was my point. If you create an economy where more than 5-10% or so of the working age populace simply has no option for gainful employment, and then decide to cut welfare to the "lazy ones", you are on a straight way to social unrest.
Having a "slimmed down" economy, that is not weighed down by mass employment of the working class has its advantages but you need to address social costs (and share the wealth with those who are left out) rather than sneer at them from your City/White Hall ivory tower for being unable to find a job.
What Germany does best is that they seem to factor social costs (and social "welfare", not necessarily meaning hand outs but the well-being of the populace at large) into their economic model. You can't build an economy that simply treats employees as a "resource" that is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as raw materials or manufacturing equipment - because sooner or later you will have a revolution on your hands. I think Brits have forgotten about it.
The key is some sort of reproduction management strategy, an immigration/emigration strategy, or starting wars in order to kill off the idle. Unfortunately for the West, we typically won't engage in the first two, so...... :shifty:
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 05:19:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:43:16 AM
Manufacturing is still there, trouble is its not the mass employer it once was.
That was my point. If you create an economy where more than 5-10% or so of the working age populace simply has no option for gainful employment, and then decide to cut welfare to the "lazy ones", you are on a straight way to social unrest.
Having a "slimmed down" economy, that is not weighed down by mass employment of the working class has its advantages but you need to address social costs (and share the wealth with those who are left out) rather than sneer at them from your City/White Hall ivory tower for being unable to find a job.
What Germany does best is that they seem to factor social costs (and social "welfare", not necessarily meaning hand outs but the well-being of the populace at large) into their economic model. You can't build an economy that simply treats employees as a "resource" that is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as raw materials or manufacturing equipment - because sooner or later you will have a revolution on your hands. I think Brits have forgotten about it.
I see your point but isn't this basically what all the European states has attempted? If Germany seemingly succeeded with it, that makes them the exception which does not prove the rule to be feasible.
I think the age of easy social welfare systems is well over now that unlimited free credit is gone for them. I am not sure what will follow, but the "throw money at it and it will just go away" model has failed and its time to figure out a new one.
German unemployment is not typically lower than that of the UK, it is usually higher if anything :
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a8a3sje0h8ii_&met=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:GB&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment#met=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:GB:DE
I wouldn't say the British economic is fundamentally broken, given that even after the worst banking crisis in three generations we have an unemployment rate that is only 1 percentage point higher than Germany's, the supposed thrift, export manufacturing powerhouse.
There is a certain fashion to these things, at the moment Germany is "in". As it happens I am an admirer of German economic virtues myself. But it should be borne in mind that the respect they are garnering for their economic performance was not forthcoming from the pundits in the period 1990-2006. Going further back I can recall a fashionable view (back in the 1970s) that the USA's glory days as an economic dynamo were over :D
Not to say that the British economy does not have grave faults of course. But I don't think these can be resolved by emulating Germany.........we would make a very poor job of it; the best route out of a British mess is a British route.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 06:02:35 AM
But I don't think these can be resolved by emulating Germany.........we would make a very poor job of it; the best route out of a British mess is a British route.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drishtikone.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fbattleofplassey.jpg&hash=55b6bac0a8840fad6dec9bd360e22f1694260bff)
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 03:27:23 AM
It's actually interesting how in retrospect the German economy - for so many years called the "sick man of Europe" - proves to be the right model, based on domestic production (and hefty foreign trade surplus) coupled with some of the best social protections, ensuring solid redistribution of goods (not to mention making sure tax havens are not a valid option).
Well when Germany was the sick man of Europe - though I don't think anyone considered them that, just performing below potential - my understanding is that basically the German population accepted stagnating wages for the best part of a decade which is part of maintaining their competitiveness, it's not been without pain.
QuoteCompare this to the UK model, where the tory government hires, as its "fiscal responsibility expert", a guy who got rich on a store chain by avoiding paying taxes in the UK thanks to his Monaco-resident wife.
There's more to Philip Green than that and, actually, I think retail's a sector where the UK's a world leader. There aren't many retailers out there as good as him, or Stuart Rose, or Terry Leahy.
And I agree with RH that Germany's currently in, but Britain was a few years ago and before that so was Ireland. But, of course, there are serious problems especially outside London that an 'enterprise zone' won't solve. People want to invest in Shenzhen because it provides access to an enormous, growing market; people won't want to invest in Bradley because they pay slightly lower rates.
The enterprise zone stuff is bollocks. Just means companies will concentrate their jobs in those areas (thus screwing over other places they might potentially have invested) and get away without contributing so much to the taxman as they would have done. Doubt it'll lead to many jobs that wouldn't otherwise have existed popping up.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 05:19:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:43:16 AM
Manufacturing is still there, trouble is its not the mass employer it once was.
That was my point. If you create an economy where more than 5-10% or so of the working age populace simply has no option for gainful employment, and then decide to cut welfare to the "lazy ones", you are on a straight way to social unrest.
Having a "slimmed down" economy, that is not weighed down by mass employment of the working class has its advantages but you need to address social costs (and share the wealth with those who are left out) rather than sneer at them from your City/White Hall ivory tower for being unable to find a job.
What Germany does best is that they seem to factor social costs (and social "welfare", not necessarily meaning hand outs but the well-being of the populace at large) into their economic model. You can't build an economy that simply treats employees as a "resource" that is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as raw materials or manufacturing equipment - because sooner or later you will have a revolution on your hands. I think Brits have forgotten about it.
The brits have a revolution on their hands?
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
There was chaos round the Earl Grey shelves. The anarchists wanted to prove that proper tea is theft.
Well my friends who are bankers are doing well. :bowler:
The rest of us ? :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
I liked the high tea there. :)
Quote from: Brazen on March 31, 2011, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
There was chaos round the Earl Grey shelves. The anarchists wanted to prove that proper tea is theft.
I do hope the army was called in.
The worst 10% of the population does more harm than good when employed anyway. And as long as they live in clearly marked and avoidable ghettos what exactly is the problem?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
Why Fortnum and Masons?! :weep: They've got a dedicated pate and terrine section :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 12:45:37 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
Why Fortnum and Masons?! :weep: They've got a dedicated pate and terrine section :weep:
Confused anti-lodge activists ? :unsure:
Changed the post title to reflect the real question. Is Marti an anomaly or is every Polack hopelessly ignorant about the real state of countries in Europe?
Germany's economy has some very serious flaws too: extreme export dependence, massive current account surplus which creates extreme imbalances in the eurozone and saps capital from Germany, demographic decline, few "new" technologies like biotech, chips, software, consumer electronics left, etc.
I can't say how it compares to the British economy. From what I know, both countries seem to have roughly similarly rich economies, with Germany's a bit more equal in income distribution, while Britain's had higher growth and lower unemployment for most of the last decade. Germany might have fared a bit better in the last year or so, but that's not saying anything at all. Each country has to find its own economic model and there is no point in trying to emulate another country. Germany will not match the British finance industry and Britain will not match the German machine-building industry and neither will match the French luxury article industry.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2011, 08:40:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 05:19:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:43:16 AM
Manufacturing is still there, trouble is its not the mass employer it once was.
That was my point. If you create an economy where more than 5-10% or so of the working age populace simply has no option for gainful employment, and then decide to cut welfare to the "lazy ones", you are on a straight way to social unrest.
Having a "slimmed down" economy, that is not weighed down by mass employment of the working class has its advantages but you need to address social costs (and share the wealth with those who are left out) rather than sneer at them from your City/White Hall ivory tower for being unable to find a job.
What Germany does best is that they seem to factor social costs (and social "welfare", not necessarily meaning hand outs but the well-being of the populace at large) into their economic model. You can't build an economy that simply treats employees as a "resource" that is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as raw materials or manufacturing equipment - because sooner or later you will have a revolution on your hands. I think Brits have forgotten about it.
The brits have a revolution on their hands?
Are you capable of telling the difference between "they have" and "they will have"?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
:lol:
Say what you will, you had two rather big demos/riots in London over the last few months, first against tuition increases and now expenditure cuts.
Quote from: Brazen on March 31, 2011, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
There was chaos round the Earl Grey shelves. The anarchists wanted to prove that proper tea is theft.
:XD:
A revolution is a bit farfetched, not going to happen, that would take benefits being cut to the extent people are starving.
Though I do wish there was some sort of system whereby constituencies could oust their MP....
Quote from: Brazen on March 31, 2011, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
There was chaos round the Earl Grey shelves. The anarchists wanted to prove that proper tea is theft.
:lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 02:13:05 PM
Changed the post title to reflect the real question. Is Marti an anomaly or is every Polack hopelessly ignorant about the real state of countries in Europe?
Typical grumbler. A foul mouthed racist.
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
A revolution is a bit farfetched, not going to happen, that would take benefits being cut to the extent people are starving.
Though I do wish there was some sort of system whereby constituencies could oust their MP....
Well that was a bit of a hyperbole. I didn't mean a total overthrow of the government system. More like social unrest and collapse of the coalition, poll tax riot style.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
A revolution is a bit farfetched, not going to happen, that would take benefits being cut to the extent people are starving.
Though I do wish there was some sort of system whereby constituencies could oust their MP....
Well that was a bit of a hyperbole. I didn't mean a total overthrow of the government system. More like social unrest and collapse of the coalition, poll tax riot style.
The poll tax riots led to the replacement of one Conservative cabinet by another. ;)
Quote from: Warspite on March 31, 2011, 05:03:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
A revolution is a bit farfetched, not going to happen, that would take benefits being cut to the extent people are starving.
Though I do wish there was some sort of system whereby constituencies could oust their MP....
Well that was a bit of a hyperbole. I didn't mean a total overthrow of the government system. More like social unrest and collapse of the coalition, poll tax riot style.
The poll tax riots led to the replacement of one Conservative cabinet by another. ;)
Only for one term. Then ultimately it led to the Labour's long dominance. Though it always baffles me why Mayor's government ever made it in. Was Labour leadership so horrid at the time?
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
No fewer than 150 people had a sit-in at Fortnum and Masons (a posh grocer) during the recent demo, there were appalling scenes of the gentry being unable to access the cheese counter :mad:
:lol:
Say what you will, you had two rather big demos/riots in London over the last few months, first against tuition increases and now expenditure cuts.
Well now, there is nothing wrong with a law-abiding demo or protest. Similarly there will be monumental moaning and whining in the papers and other media about the cuts, but that is free speech and lets people vent. Her Majesty's loyal opposition will also ignore their role in creating the financial hole we are in and blame the bankers and the coalition.
But, I think you are wrong if you are assuming that this will lead to anything more profound or dangerous. The troublemakers at the recent demos are a tiny minority who do not receive the approval of most people, in fact they strengthen the hand of the government by weakening the respectability of their critics.
The British are quick to moan, gripe, whinge and complain..........but very slow to take more direct action. Things were a pretty grim at times in the 1970s and 1980s but never really moved further on from a large demo or strike, with only the odd bijou riot.
There was the Neil Kinnock factor in the 1992 election. You probably never had to listen to him Marti, a mind-boggingly boring waffler.............a crucial 5% of the electorate just couldn't face the prospect of listening to his boring waffle for 5 years on election day so abstained or voted for the other side. He was also (a) ginger and (b) Welsh.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 31, 2011, 05:03:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
A revolution is a bit farfetched, not going to happen, that would take benefits being cut to the extent people are starving.
Though I do wish there was some sort of system whereby constituencies could oust their MP....
Well that was a bit of a hyperbole. I didn't mean a total overthrow of the government system. More like social unrest and collapse of the coalition, poll tax riot style.
The poll tax riots led to the replacement of one Conservative cabinet by another. ;)
Only for one term. Then ultimately it led to the Labour's long dominance. Though it always baffles me why Mayor's government ever made it in. Was Labour leadership so horrid at the time?
Right, but in 1997, poll tax did not bring down the Tories - rather, sleaze, Europe, and the simple fact that after an entire generation of Conservative rule the stage was set for the energetic, youthful New Labour. Who, incidentally, in their first term continued Tory spending plans that had been set out by the Major government.
There's nothing wrong with big protests and these ones have generally been peaceful - especially that organised by the TUC. Plus many on the left hate the Socialist Workers and the anarchists rather more than the right who secretly relish their appearance. I think Ed Balls was right when he said that for the far-left they probably hate him and Miliband more than Osborne and Cameron.
QuoteOnly for one term. Then ultimately it led to the Labour's long dominance. Though it always baffles me why Mayor's government ever made it in. Was Labour leadership so horrid at the time?
Well Major lasted 2 years and then won an election. Seven years isn't bad, just they were remarkably torrid for Major. To put it in context it means Major, in terms of post-war PMs was PM for less than Maggie and Blair but about the same as Wilson and MacMillan which is hardly an enormous failure.
Personally I think his rather understated personality helped after more than a decade of Maggie.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 02:13:05 PM
Changed the post title to reflect the real question. Is Marti an anomaly or is every Polack hopelessly ignorant about the real state of countries in Europe?
Typical grumbler. A foul mouthed racist.
Poor Marti! :(
Soooo dumb that...
even the other Polacks notice! :lol:
You know, grumbler, other people want that Pole-bashing schtick as well. You're kind of ruining it for the rest of us with your "too virulent to be amusing" take on it.
No he isn't. POLACK
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 06:53:50 AM
You know, grumbler, other people want that Pole-bashing schtick as well. You're kind of ruining it for the rest of us with your "too virulent to be amusing" take on it.
:lmfao:
Thanks. No thread here is complete, IMO, until you burst into tears at least once. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2011, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 06:53:50 AM
You know, grumbler, other people want that Pole-bashing schtick as well. You're kind of ruining it for the rest of us with your "too virulent to be amusing" take on it.
:lmfao:
Thanks. No thread here is complete, IMO, until you burst into tears at least once. :hug:
Is that how you interpreted that post? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 09:36:07 AM
Is that how you interpreted that post? :huh:
Yep. Please keep up the transparently passive-aggressive routine. I'm loving it. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2011, 09:43:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 09:36:07 AM
Is that how you interpreted that post? :huh:
Yep. Please keep up the transparently passive-aggressive routine. I'm loving it. :hug:
:wacko: You must have a wire crossed somewhere in the area responsible for comprehension of other people's communication.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 31, 2011, 05:11:18 PM
The troublemakers at the recent demos are a tiny minority who do not receive the approval of most people, in fact they strengthen the hand of the government by weakening the respectability of their critics.
Exactly. Case in point are the demonstrations leading up to the olympics here in Vancouver. There were a lot of legitimate groups that were looking forward to demonstrating in front of the world media. However the first mass demonstration fell victim to a small group of anarchists who engaged in a lot of property destruction which attracted all the news headlines and drowned out any of the legitimate messages the vast majority of the protestors wished to communicate. The legitimate protestors then had to spend most of their media time convincing the general public that they were not part of the property damage.
At the end of the day everyone roundly condemned the people who did participate in the property damage and the legitimate protestors didnt organize another mass protest for fear the same thing would happen and they would be completely discredited.
Well, thats not quite true. Someone did try to call for another such protest/demonstration but nobody showed.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 10:06:51 AM
:wacko: You must have a wire crossed somewhere in the area responsible for comprehension of other people's communication.
:( Can't you make more passive-aggressive bullshit posts before slipping into the
ad hom gutter? So much potential for amusement is lost when you play your final losing card so early.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2011, 10:21:15 AM
Exactly. Case in point are the demonstrations leading up to the olympics here in Vancouver. There were a lot of legitimate groups that were looking forward to demonstrating in front of the world media. However the first mass demonstration fell victim to a small group of anarchists who engaged in a lot of property destruction which attracted all the news headlines and drowned out any of the legitimate messages the vast majority of the protestors wished to communicate. The legitimate protestors then had to spend most of their media time convincing the general public that they were not part of the property damage.
At the end of the day everyone roundly condemned the people who did participate in the property damage and the legitimate protestors didnt organize another mass protest for fear the same thing would happen and they would be completely discredited.
Well, thats not quite true. Someone did try to call for another such protest/demonstration but nobody showed.
:yes: It is amazing and saddening that we as spectators keep falling for that schtick, but, frankly, the blackshirts are just that much more interesting. It is just human nature, I think.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2011, 10:29:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 10:06:51 AM
:wacko: You must have a wire crossed somewhere in the area responsible for comprehension of other people's communication.
:( Can't you make more passive-aggressive bullshit posts before slipping into the ad hom gutter? So much potential for amusement is lost when you play your final losing card so early.
Believe it or not, I was not at all playing games with you. What I said was exactly what I was thinking, and I wasn't trying to rile you up.
All I said in the first post is that your "Polack" schtick doesn't work, it's way too crass-sounding to be funny. That wasn't my reaction to a debate with you, because if you haven't noticed, I didn't even post at all in this thread until this point.
When you interpreted my remark about your schtick as me crying, I was completely dumbfounded as to how you could make such connection. That kind of interpretation of reality seemed very strange and illogical to me, hence the post about you having your wires crossed. You really do seem to have a knack for misinterpreting people's posts and intentions in ways that are very extreme and unpredictable, and are far beyond the normal variance in human perception.
Feel free to misinterpret this post as well, that schtick of yours works much better than the Polack one.
Why are you letting grumbler troll you so hard?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Why are you letting grumbler troll you so hard?
Because I don't believe that he is a troll? I do think that his errors in comprehension are huge and frequent. However, I do not think that these errors are intentional. Even my opinion of grumbler is not that low.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Why are you letting grumbler troll you so hard?
Because I don't believe that he is a troll? I do think that his errors in comprehension are huge and frequent. However, I do not think that these errors are intentional. Even my opinion of grumbler is not that low.
My opinion of you just took a hit...
I still love you DG. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Why are you letting grumbler troll you so hard?
Because I don't believe that he is a troll? I do think that his errors in comprehension are huge and frequent. However, I do not think that these errors are intentional. Even my opinion of grumbler is not that low.
I am just going to quote this for archival purposes.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 10:49:15 AM
Why are you letting grumbler troll you so hard?
Because I don't believe that he is a troll? I do think that his errors in comprehension are huge and frequent. However, I do not think that these errors are intentional. Even my opinion of grumbler is not that low.
I am just going to quote this for archival purposes.
:lol:
Little known fact: grumbler invented archival purposes. It's been his favourite activity ever since. No one knows what he does with his database, but it must be something very sinister. The burning of the library of Alexandria was an attempt to determine what, if any, use could be finagled out of the great work, but someone "accidentally" tipped over a lamp. There has since been several "accidental" service distruptions on Languish.