Games Lanes

On Jul 30, 2:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:53:47 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

China now has some $2tn of foreign reserves. I am sure they can do
without the 180,000 profit I have made ( 60,000 investment now worth
between 200,000 and 300,000).

Instead I will invest it to support the UK property market, and
provide much needed rental accommodation, in Inner London, to give
those people too poor to buy their own homes, a place to live.

So I was right you are a capitalist planning to become bloodsucking
landlord scum, not very left wing right on is it?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:52:40 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:53:47 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

China now has some $2tn of foreign reserves. I am sure they can do
without the 180,000 profit I have made ( 60,000 investment now worth
between 200,000 and 300,000).

Instead I will invest it to support the UK property market, and
provide much needed rental accommodation, in Inner London, to give
those people too poor to buy their own homes, a place to live.

So I was right you are a capitalist planning to become bloodsucking
landlord scum, not very left wing right on is it?

Wrong. I am not planning on changing my status at all. I will simply
be extending to the work I already do proving affordable high quality
accommodation for those who prefer to rent rather than buy.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were


You are quite right - and Crispin is wrong yet again (this is becoming rather
monotonous):

Greenwich is a district of south London, England, located in the Royal Borough
of Greenwich and situated 5.5 miles (8.9 km) east south-east of Charing Cross.

Of course - the required disclaimer : Wikipedia could be wrong - and Crispin is
welcome to correct it.

Is he really a teacher?

On 30/07/2012 16:16, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?



Thick ****.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 30/07/2012 17:46, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were


You are quite right - and Crispin is wrong yet again (this is becoming rather
monotonous):

Greenwich is a district of south London, England, located in the Royal Borough
of Greenwich and situated 5.5 miles (8.9 km) east south-east of Charing Cross.

Of course - the required disclaimer : Wikipedia could be wrong - and Crispin is
welcome to correct it.

Is he really a teacher?

We have ruled out science, geography, maths, woodwork & English so far.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:46:23 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were


You are quite right - and Crispin is wrong yet again (this is becoming rather
monotonous):

Greenwich is a district of south London, England, located in the Royal Borough
of Greenwich and situated 5.5 miles (8.9 km) east south-east of Charing Cross.

Of course - the required disclaimer : Wikipedia could be wrong - and Crispin is
welcome to correct it.

Thank you. I have made a few corrections, but was unable to edit the
title.

Is he really a teacher?

On Jul 30, 4:16*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

Why are you nitpicking, you know exactly what I meant, do you really
think it's worth while to persue this? Is it brownie points you seek?

On Jul 30, 4:04*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:52:40 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:53:47 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

China now has some $2tn of foreign reserves. I am sure they can do
without the 180,000 profit I have made ( 60,000 investment now worth
between 200,000 and 300,000).

Instead I will invest it to support the UK property market, and
provide much needed rental accommodation, in Inner London, to give
those people too poor to buy their own homes, a place to live.

So I was right you are a capitalist planning to become bloodsucking
landlord scum, not very left wing right on is it?

Wrong. I am not planning on changing my status at all. I will simply
be extending to the work I already do proving affordable high quality
accommodation for those who prefer to rent rather than buy.

So you are already a capitalist bloodsucker, exhorting rent from the
poor. Do you select tenants who are able to claim housing benefit? The
rent we are all contributing is that going towards your pension fund?

On Jul 30, 4:16*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:31 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.

The SE10 postal district, is also bounded by Charlton.

I now assume, that by "Greenwich Town" you mean the postal district. I
cannot think of an alternative definition. If that is the case, I am
not convinced that "Greenwich Town" falls entirely within Royal
Greenwich. Small parts may well be in Lewisham. Indeed, a cursory
glance at Street Map confirms that is the case. Therefore your
reference to "Greenwich" was doubly befuddling: how was I to know that
you were referring to parts of Lewisham?

I never mentioned 'Grenwich Town' or any postal districts they are
inventions of your own mind thus can mean anything you care to make
them mean.
You clearly know exactly what I mean and I have accepted your apology,
now might be a good time to stop digging.