More Labour stupidity....

Paul wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

We pay about 7p / kWh
Who are you with ? At the very least that's the excl VAT price ?


Well okay, it's 7.292p + VAT which brings it to 7.6566p, less discounts for
gas/electric together and internet account, final figure is 7.392p / unit
(Scottish Power).

Mind you, before the capped period ended in July, I was paying 4.66p + VAT
for electricity.

Also, I was shocked to find that the unit price for gas has more than
doubled at the same time, from 1.204p to 2.417p per kWh.

Of course, the higher priced starting ubits or standing charge is irrelevant
when it comes to savings on your bill.

I emailed British Gas to explain how they calculated their £46 figure, but
I'm not holding my breath for a reply.

Ah, I forgot I'm on Economy 7 so I'm paying more for daytime lekky anyway.

Shouldn't have forgotten, I did a comparison between suppliers last week,
including Scottish Power ! Comparing like for like they charge 7.572p+VAT
in my area.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Luke Bosman" wrote in message
news:1hnv16g.l8hbkj185r99qN%gogogo.tilson.5.lukebo ...
Clem Dye wrote:

The Labour government's approach to CO2/global warming et al is a farce.
They spank the motorist because he's an easy target yet offer no
alternatives;

Governments use 'the environment' as an excuse for collecting more tax. It's
pure hypocrisy.

Bill

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:48:57 GMT, "Slitheen"
wrote:

Anyone wanting to get a CRT would be very wise to get one of the Samsung HD
Ready ones mentioned earlier in this thread. They're bloody cheap compared
to LCD and Plasma, take a HD signal and have all the benefits of CRT such as
much better colour reproduction.

What the ones mentioned earlier as being crap? Good advice.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Bill Wright wrote:

"Luke Bosman" wrote in message
news:1hnv16g.l8hbkj185r99qN%gogogo.tilson.5.lukebo ...
Clem Dye wrote:

The Labour government's approach to CO2/global warming et al is a farce.
They spank the motorist because he's an easy target yet offer no
alternatives;

Governments use 'the environment' as an excuse for collecting more tax. It's
pure hypocrisy.

Do change the tune. Perhaps to one that offers reason.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Pyriform wrote:

And no doubt all the flaws of CRT such as poor geometry, poor EHT regulation
resulting in picture size fluctuations, convergence problems, loss of focus
at the corners etc etc.

We have a BEKO 28" (i.e. not a cutting edge set ) in the living room and
various wee tellys upstairs 1 in the main bedroom and one each in the
boy's rooms (so 4 CRTs in all) none of them have any of those problems
that I can see.

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

soup wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

And no doubt all the flaws of CRT such as poor geometry, poor EHT
regulation resulting in picture size fluctuations, convergence
problems, loss of focus at the corners etc etc.

We have a BEKO 28" (i.e. not a cutting edge set ) in the living room
and various wee tellys upstairs 1 in the main bedroom and one each in
the boy's rooms (so 4 CRTs in all) none of them have any of those
problems that I can see.

I'd be astonished if they had no geometry or screen regulation problems.
They might not bother you, but they'll be there. I still use a (very good)
CRT for my TV viewing, but I would never claim that it gives a perfect
picture. CRTs have a different set of flaws to competing technologies.

The HD CRT being advocated in the earlier post is I suspect one of the new
slim designs. These require the electron beams to be deflected through
extreme angles, making all of CRTs inherent flaws even more problematic.

"Luke Bosman" wrote in message
news:1hnwvd1.1wyk3nvfehu86N%gogogo.tilson.5.lukebo ...
Governments use 'the environment' as an excuse for collecting more tax.
It's
pure hypocrisy.

Do change the tune. Perhaps to one that offers reason.

Sorry if you don't like it when I repeat the bald facts. Fanatical
environmentalists know that in many respects their claims aren't valid, so
they prefer obfuscation to hard truth.

On certain large cruise ships which do 19 inches to the gallon there are
notices in the toilets exhorting the guests to save paper towels 'for the
sake of the environment'. That's just another example of how people
hypocritically use 'the environment' as an excuse for saving or making
money.

Like many another good cause, genuine core environmental issues have been
hijacked by individuals, companies, and governments with ulterior (usually
financial) motives). So excuse me if I say '********!' and ignore their
demands. I've been around too long to be taken in by these tricksters.

Bill

Pyriform wrote:


I'd be astonished if they had no geometry or screen regulation problems.
They might not bother you, but they'll be there. I still use a (very good)
CRT for my TV viewing, but I would never claim that it gives a perfect
picture.

That's why I have said "that I can see" and after all isn't that what
matters what the viewer perceives rather than what some test says?

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Luke Bosman" wrote in
message

news:1hnwvd1.1wyk3nvfehu86N%gogogo.tilson.5.lukebo
....
Governments use 'the environment' as an excuse for collecting
more tax.
It's
pure hypocrisy.

Do change the tune. Perhaps to one that offers reason.

Sorry if you don't like it when I repeat the bald facts. Fanatical
environmentalists know that in many respects their claims aren't
valid, so
they prefer obfuscation to hard truth.

On certain large cruise ships which do 19 inches to the gallon there
are
notices in the toilets exhorting the guests to save paper towels
'for the
sake of the environment'. That's just another example of how people
hypocritically use 'the environment' as an excuse for saving or
making
money.

Like many another good cause, genuine core environmental issues have
been
hijacked by individuals, companies, and governments with ulterior
(usually
financial) motives). So excuse me if I say '********!' and ignore
their
demands. I've been around too long to be taken in by these
tricksters.

Bill




Honours Degree in cynicism eh Bill? You and me alike Brother!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Fanatical environmentalists know that in many respects their claims aren't
valid, so they prefer obfuscation to hard truth.

Possibly. But the non-fanatical scientists that are researching in this area
have been warning us for 20 to 30 years and are *very* worried. The Earth
isn't under threat - but our children/grandchildren are.

Don't confuse the scientists with the idiots who have only just woken up to
the threat. Or the idiots who are ignoring it.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing