Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Posts posted by Patmobile

  1. I wouldn't use any of the solutions proposed above.  Any software that you were using on the old computer and that is now needed on the new computer, should be installed properly from new (i.e. using the original software disks) otherwise it may not (probably won't) work properly.

    Data files can be transferred on CD or by direct cable connection between PCs. (I prefer to use Laplink - a piece of bulletproof cable transfer software I have been using since the days of DOS.  I use an updated version now, of course.)  Alternatively, if you have a home network put both PCs on it temporarily to facilitate the transfer.  Another rather tedious option would be to email the data files to yourself and collect the mails on your new PC.

    E-mails and address books etc should be exported to a file, perhaps on the desktop of the old PC, and then transferred by cable or CD to the new PCwhere they are imported into the new software.

    I don't think you can go wrong doing it this way.  Copying the hard drive is, in my opinion, a very bad idea.





  2. Does anybody keep alpacas?  I'm thinking of keeping a few on the land behind our new house.  I thought they might help to keep the grass between the trees tidy and reduce unwanted undergrowth.  I was thinking of goats or sheep, but alpaca look nicer and less of a problem to maintain.

    Any advice?


  3. Fair enough, Treize Vents, my post sounded sarcastic but it was meant kindly.  I didn't bring up the N azis, by the way, they appeared earlier in the thread and were referred to, by you, in your condemnation of Capitalism. 

    I think there's always a place for experimentation, otherwise humanity cannot progress.  I'm glad there are people like you testing new social theories and seeing how they work in practice.  History is full of brave attempts that could have succeeded but got overtaken by events, or more powerful or practical ideas.

    I've always tried to keep an open mind - it's a necessity to anyone who believes knowledge can only come from scientific enquiry and experimentation - and I responded as I did to your post because I thought it sounded as if you had closed yours.  Sorry.

    I rather like the sound of Treizeventism, too.  Please remember, when it becomes famous, that I was the one who coined it.  I would like to have made some contribution to the revolution, even if it's just inventing the name.


    Edit:  Sorry, I'm wrong again, I don't think you did mention the N azis - I can't think where I got that idea from. 


  4. [quote user="TreizeVents"]Perhaps you are unaware of the role "big business" played in the rise and maintenance of Nazi Germany. 

    Perhaps are you also aware that some quite intelligent and knowledgeable commentators label the Soviet Union as State Capitalism. 

    And are you really completely unaware of why people find capitalism far form the best we can do, globally speaking?  Honestly, with all the publicity and analysis in the recent elections here where you live, you really honestly still have no idea why someone might not really be fond of capitalism.  Maybe you should get out a bit more or have a wider variety of friends.

    Its not that I am going to argue with you.  I doubt if it would benefit either of us.  Its just that I find it incredible that you are bewildered.

    Well, that's capitalism, communism and national socialism dismissed.  What's left to try?  Nationalism & Racism would seem to have already been included in Naziism.  There is no democratic socialist state that is not also capitalist, so that's obviously out.  I suppose were left with Nihilism, Anarchism, (are they the same thing?) and, perhaps, the new Treizeventism, if only we knew what it was.  A benevolent patriarchy (or matriarchy) perhaps.

    Everything will be hunky-dory when Treize Vents rules.  I'm looking forward to the day.


  5. [quote user="Ron Avery"]
    What happened was the tax concessions were removed from the cash rich and very well off pension funds in 1997 and the money received invested in creating jobs. [/quote]

    It comes to the same thing.  Private pension funds, which had enouh money to pay the pensions their investors expected and planned for, now haven't.  Up till then pensions had been a relatively popular and sensible way of saving for later in life.  The funds were a useful way of getting people to invest in industry, too, so there was a double benefit to the country, lots of investment money available to industry, and less of a load on future generations of taxpayers to maintain pensioners.

    It also means your pension savings are taxed twice, which rather defeats the object of putting it away in an untouchable fund, and infringes the convention that you pay tax on your pension only when you actually get the money.

    People prefer to invest in real estate, now.  Or just spend the money instead.  That's Gordon's legacy - unaffordable property prices for first time buyers and a pensions time-bomb for future governments.

    Oh, and Gordon's frequent use of the word "investment" to mean paying the same number of public sector workers more money to do the same work they were doing before, is one you won't find in most economics textbooks.


  6. In a hundred years time all they'll know about Blair is that he brought about the end of the United Kingdom.  Whether this will be seen as a good or bad thing, only time will tell.

    What history probably won't record is that it was all the result of a typical slippery Blair manoeuvre for short term political gain resulting in long term unforeseen consequences.  Except that, of course, they were foreseen by lots of people.

    I remember him lying twice in a single TV interview during his first term. He said he had voted in a debate on hunting - he hadn't - and he claimed  the private member's anti-hunt bill had been stopped by the House of Lords - it never got through the commons.  Like most Brits I didn't care whether hunting went on or not, but I did care very much that a Prime Minister should think millions of TV news viewers such complete fools that he could lie to them with impunity.  I was convinced then that he would, just as glibly, lie to us on some far more important matters in the future - and he certainly did.

    Happily, I can count myself blameless, as once I realised what a fake he was I never voted for the slippery con-man.  I came to France, where at least we know that politicians are corrupt, and no-one makes much of a pretence of believing they're not.

    He'll go to jail, mark my words.


  7. [quote user="Tag"]Patmobile, I thought Sarko took the Pas de Calais with most of the old, northern, industrial heartland.[/quote]

    Most of the north, but not the Pas De Calais.  Anyway, it's mostly agricultural around here.


  8. [quote user="Motorhead"]

    Civil service jobs were not sent to places like Scotland, Wales and Geordieland through altruism. The notoriously parsimonious government was unwilling to pay wages comensurate with home counties accomodation costs. Independence need not necesseraly change things. Just think of it as an outsourced Indian call centre that actually works.


    Goodness gracious me, I think you're right!


  9. Apparently Sean Connery has promised to go back to live in Scotland when it becomes independent.  Like many talented Scots he had to leave to make make a living. 

    He probably doesn't realise that 40% of people working in Scotland are employed by the government.  The government of Britain, that is.  This is why tax offices and and other labour intensive government offices are situated there.  These jobs were exported from the south of England to try to ease unemployment in Scotland.

    Who will employ these people when England, understandably, wants to employ English staff in English locations?  Sean Connery?

    Another small point - will they pay England back a proportion of the £440 million their ludicrously expensive parliament building cost?  Indeed, would the notoriously parsimonious Scots have ever built such a costly building if it was their own money they were spending?  (There are only 5 million of them)   

    I count myself Scottish.  I've never lived there for any significant length of time and never want to, independent or not.



  10. I've often thought that voting in elections that concern the government of a country should be restricted to those who are intelligent enough to understand the political debate.

    The problem has always been that setting any form of examination in which people have to qualify as voters is seen by many as undemocratic.  So, in most elections, a large block of votes, in effect perhaps the casting votes, are often held by those who lack the intelligence to understand what the choices represent.  This is unfair to the majority of voters who can use their brains.  

    How brilliantly the Scotland has dealt with this in the recent local government and Scottish Parliament elections.  By combining two elections in which you had to make your choice in different ways, they made the ballot paper itself the examination.  No matter who won, or did not win this election, we have seen a major breakthrough in the democratic process.  Now we just need to devise a stiffer exam



  11. [quote user="Clair"][quote user="Patmobile"][quote user="Clair"] I cannot endorse either.[/quote]

    If you were a voter and you wanted to have a say in France's future you would have to decide on one or the other.  This is the way this election works, and millions of French people who feel like you will, nevertheless, put their mark in one or other box on the ballot paper.


    Patrick, I am a voter and I do have a say, unlike most here, which makes my dilemma more acute.

    For me this is not a glib discussion, it is a real and difficult choice, which I feel unable to make at present.

    EDIT: to vote, you put a ballot paper (or nothing) in an envelope.

    You had your say in round one.  I agree though, this election system does leave you in a spot if neither of the two most popular candidates is one you can bring yourself to vote for.  Thanks for enlightening me on how to vote.  I now see that a blank vote in this final round is not an irresponsible act.  It's a valid indication of your dissatisfaction with both candidates on offer.  

    I suppose it is easy for me to say make your mind up - I don't actually have to.  (Although I have now, and I've put her poster in my window)



  12. It' got to be one or the other, so no point wishin there could be a third choice of a mixture of the two.  Although I think France needs Sarko, from a purely selfish point of view I now hope that Sego wins. 

    I've realised that it's the socialist culture that so dominates French lifestyle that makes France such a pleasant place to live.  Why should we want Sarko to start the process of turning France into something more fast-paced and competitive?  If I was French I would probably vote for him, but because I'm only here for the relaxed lifestyle I hope it's President Royal for the forseeable future.



  13. [quote user="Tresco"]

    Patrick, I agree some of Royals proposals are pretty odd, and indeed worrisome, but do you have no doubts about Sarkozy at all?


    Yes, one or two, but this is about the choice between two candidates, one of whom must win.  In this situation you have to choose the least bad - just like last time.

    Sarkozy has at least kept personal abuse out of his campaigning.  Segolene on the other hand, has found it useful to tell blatant lies about him and slanderously misrepresent his policies.

    France needs less of Segolene's brand of medicine, not more.  Sarkozy may or may not be a nice person, but he's not Le Pen, and though he's not as pretty as Mme Royale he shows a willingness to take the unpopular decisions that are needed for France.  Not many politicians will do that.



  14. If Mme Royale didn't spout such a torrent of nonsense policies this man wouldn't be in the running.  Like Chirac v. Le Pen last time, all you can say is that one is less dangerous for France than the other.  This time the uglier one has to win.


  15. We were advertising on, among others, Holiday Havens website .  It used to produce a respectable number of enquiries and enough bookings to easily justify it's inclusion in our budget.

    It's not there any more!

    Sites that actually produce bookings are not that easy to find, so can anyone recommend something to fill the gap in our advertising left by this site's disappearance?





  16. If you're going to be in the Montreuil/Hesdin/Fruges area, you may find it useful to contact an organisation called R.E.S. which exists to find work opportunities for unemployed people.  They can supply cleaners, gardeners, decorators, general labourers, etc., as well as waiters and washers up for when you're having big parties.

    The employer pays 13€25 per hour.  This includes all the insurances and social charges which you would be illegally avoiding if ou employ someone "on the black".  You are therefore fully covered in the event of any accident to the emloyee.

    The best bit, though, is that you can deduct 50% of the total directly from your annual tax bill, so the real cost to you is only 6€63 per hour, which is probably less than hiring on the black.

    The contract is very flexible.  You set the dates and hours of work, and you get a proper contract from RES.  You pay on invoice one month in arrears.  I am currently employing a gardener this way, and I have previously had a painter/decorator for a week so I personally recommend the scheme.

    RES can be contacted on 03 21 03 43 33 (Fruges) or 03 21 81 82 82 (Montreuil)




  • Create New...