1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tony, old son, it's not always essential to view ... your uncertainties would be cleared by actually reading the transcript.

I did. They weren't. I thought you wanted a discussion on the misleading/not misleading question. Evidently, what you wanted was agreement, but I'm not sure on which side.

Greeners are good at polemics, and ruthless. You also have to take into account the fact that Greeners are, in most respects, considerably to the left of NEW Labour. The OLD labour, Beveridge seems to have felt, squandered its aid on nationalisation (that really feelthy Frog concept). Assume, as I do, that Mickwick is a Greener, that Beverage was anything but (and bright enough to see Atlee and his wrecking crew for what they were), and you may see that clarity is not what you might expect in this "discussion".
As for the Marshall Plan, the Republicans passed it, and as for Britain I seem to remember she got (like the others) about 90% as a grant, not a loan. Whether the loan was repaid or not I don't know, but Britain did pay through the nose for "Lend Lease".
>>> I did. They weren't. I thought you wanted ... you wantedwas agreement, but I'm not sure on which side.

Greeners are good at polemics, and ruthless.

You yourself, of course, would lay no claim to the status of ruthless polemicist.
You also have to take into account the fact that Greeners are, in most respects, considerably to the left of ... wrecking crew for what they were), and you may see that clarity isnot what you might expect in this "discussion".

I do so hope MW hasn't clocked out yet!
As for the Marshall Plan, the Republicans passed it, and as for Britain I seem to remember she got (like ... loan. Whether the loan was repaid or not I don'tknow, but Britain did pay through the nose for "Lend Lease".

Indirectly was even worse than directly, of course.

Mike.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Assume, as I do, that Mickwick is a Greener, that Beverage was anything but (and bright enough to see Atlee and his wrecking crew for what they were),

Oh good. For the past few weeks I've been worried sick (= BrE/LiebsE "ill") that you liked Attlee and were offended at my suggestion to the contrary.

Steny '08!
Assume, as I do, that Mickwick is a Greener, that ... see Atlee and his wrecking crew for what they were),

Oh good. For the past few weeks I've been worried sick (= BrE/LiebsE "ill") that you liked Attlee and were offended at my suggestion to the contrary.

I am touched by this, kitten.
ObAUE:
I am almost sure that in 1948 the English said "worried sick" but "were made ill" or "sickened". What they say now I do not know.
I do so hope MW hasn't clocked out yet!

Sorry, brother. I had to go and table a composite.

Comrade Mick
Beveridge Secretary
International Brotherhood of Doomsters, Chauffagists, Weresocialists and Yelpers of the World
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Tony, old son, it's not always essential to view source ... your uncertainties would be cleared by actually reading the transcript.

I did. They weren't. I thought you wanted a discussion on the misleading/not misleading question. Evidently, what you wanted was agreement, but I'm not sure on which side.

Of course I wanted agreement. Like a good control freak, I considered ever angle and stitched up every possibility in the original post. What's to disagree with?

Mickwick
Greeners are good at polemics, and ruthless. You also have to take into account the fact that Greeners are, in ... crew for what they were), and you may see that clarity is not what you might expect in this "discussion".

(Is that an example of that little-discussed beast, Canadian irony?)

Clarity, Clarence? It is you what muddies the waters, what-what? So many Beveridges, so little time. What does an assumed distaste for Young Mr Beveridge's politics have to do with the rightness or wrongness of Young Mr Beveridge giving that answer to that question in that context?

If anything, I think I was too kind to him. My initial reaction was that his answer was a bare-faced lie. It took me a long time to find a slightly more creditable explanation.
Y'know, I think I'll just ask him what he meant. His e-mail address is available online.
As for the Marshall Plan, the Republicans passed it, and as for Britain I seem to remember she got (like the others) about 90% as a grant, not a loan.

Adjusted for inflation, the grant would now be worth $20 billion, which is not to be sniffed at. It's almost as much as Britain pays to the EU each year. The loan would be worth nearly $3 billion, which is what it costs to keep British troops in Iraq for a year.
Whether the loan was repaid or not I don't know, but Britain did pay through the nose for "Lend Lease".

You got that right.

Mickwick
Of course I wanted agreement. Like a good control freak, I considered ever angle and stitched up every possibility in the original post. What's to disagree with?

Loose stitches sink slips.

Tony Cooper
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Is a grant a loan?
In any case it was not until Lady Thatcher had managed to tidy up most of the wreckage left by Old Labour that the UK was in a position to pay anybody anything; and what gentleman (President Reagan (God rest his soul)) would have asked a lady for so trifling a sum as $300 million plus interest? They pay that much for doing over the Senate bathrooms, I hear.
Ob Socialist nomenclature:
Is a Brother a Comrade?
Show more