From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Fishing Without A License... (Was: Campus bar peeve)
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:45:04 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <28203@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M "Like A
>Hungry Trout In Spring" Holmes) snaps:

Spring? What wouldn't I give for Spring. It's bloody freezing here, and
me with no gas fire (Peeveful rant about British Gas now fermenting....)

><<jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy "Fishing In A Barrel With A Shotgun" 
><<Henderson) writes a rather long and impassioned story of gross
><<malfeasance in a campus (SOB!) pub and ends up with 2 lines:

><>ObMikeHolmesBait: The guvmint deciding that the economy will perk right up
><>once home-owners get a bit more help with their mortgages.

>	Holmes snaps up the bait, swallows the hook and leaps
>	from the water for line after line.

We all gotta have some bee in our bonnet. Hell, I could take music
seriously and respond whenever someone slags Hawkwind. But that'd be
both puerile and onerous since every music crit of 'em starts with "My
god! Are those old hippies *still* at it?....."

So, my chosen subject for spontaneous rants is that the guvmint will
happily steal from me and hand the money to feckless investors. And once
the fecklessness of these investors is proven beyond even the doubt of
their local estate agent, why they'll just up and ask for *more* of my
money. If we could tax stupidity, there wouldn't be a budget deficit in
this country.

>ObPeeve: Henderson probably won't bother to play Holmes properly..

<sigh> It's always the way. 

>ObPeeve: The easily baited (and hooked, gaffed and landed....)

Hey, I'm not in Usenet to *avoid* arguments. That'd be like going to
singles bars to stay celibate. But maybe you regard folks who are easily
persuaded into bouncy-bouncy by semi-clad bimbettes as "easily baited".
Do the words "Unclear on the Concept" mean anything here?

ObRelatedPeeve: An opinion poll was published today which claimed that
75% of the British population would happily pay more taxes.

Now, maybe I'm just some kind of political genius but if this is in fact
true (and folks claimed before the election that they'd vote for Labour
and they didn't mind that they'd be taxed more - enough of 'em were
lying that the Tories won).... if this is in fact true, and we have a
budget deficit of 38 billion and a projected deficit of 44 billion, then
two birds can be killed with one stone here.

We could also run some interactive checks on whether folks are lying to
the pollsters. I envisage something like this:

Pollster: Excuse me sir, I wonder if you could answer a few questions?

Joe Public: Well...ok.

Pollster: We're trying to find out about public attitudes to taxation,
          so I'd like to ask you whether you'd be willing to pay more
          taxes to pay off the budget deficit and improve public services?

Joe Public: Why, sure. I think it would be a good idea.

Pollster: I'm very glad to hear you say that sir. You'll be happy to
          hear that I've brought along a chequebook with cheques already made
          out to Her Majesty's Treasury. Shall we say one thousand
          Pounds? If you'd just like to sign here......

And so we'd solve the budget deficit. We'd have some evidence of whether
or not people are telling the truth. And all those people who want to
pay more taxes would be given the chance to do that very thing. Everyone
would be happy.

I mean, if all those folks are just waiting to pay extra taxes, what's
holding them back? Why don't they just send a cheque to Parliament?

I just don't understand why nobody has thought of this before.
-- 

We wonder why other folks regard computing people as weird while we
persistently refer to small, square objects as "discs".
Newsgroups: alt.peeves