Ambition Lancashire - Page 2

KIPAX · 26-07-2004, 16:46

Sigh.... Somone tries to post some information and only Lettie takes it for what it is.. the rest of you are busy looking for something wrong..somehting to fight about or taking the mickey...

I would be suprised if the original poster ever came back and tried to post anyhting interesting... What would be the point ?

I suppose you will all round on me now and start calling me names and accusing me of taking kama and making up insults about me.... well sorry but the response to the original post is nothing less than pathetic....embarresing even

yu should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sorry lettie.. none of the above aimed at you of course.

Acrylic-bob · 26-07-2004, 16:51

Sniff, Sniff? Do I detect the distinctive aroma of burning martyr??

Tealeaf · 26-07-2004, 16:53

Oh dear.....off crawling to the County Council bureaucrats, are we Kipax? If this poster was totally serious a one paragraph introduction with an attached link, explalining what it was all about would have been sufficient. As things stand, any intrinsic merit this report may possibly have pocessed is ruined by this woeful presentation.

Actually, you'd make an excellent bureaucrat & aparatcheik, Kipax; your middle name is'nt Molotov, Beria or Gorbells is it?

lettie · 26-07-2004, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

! Surely no one - apart from Lettie - could take this petty bureaucratic gobbeldy-gook seriously.

I'm not quite sure why you think I took this seriously Tealeaf, I do recall saying it was repetitive, (polite word for boring) as are all of these kind of reports. We already have family centres, and schemes like this are nigh on impossible to implement because the people that need them don't want them.
This report is essentially a paper exercise to keep some pen pusher in a job at our expense. It could probably have been summed up in a simple paragraph.

Tealeaf · 26-07-2004, 16:57

Just look what you've gone and started, Lettie

lettie · 26-07-2004, 16:58

Sorry, I won't do it again...

KIPAX · 26-07-2004, 16:59

See what I mean... predictable little scoundrals arn't you

Tealeaf · 26-07-2004, 17:03

Us? Never...........we simply maintain a constructive dialogue in critical thinking.

MY SMILIES ARE'NT WORKING.......................

yerself · 27-07-2004, 16:47

You are a bounder and a scoundrel Tealeaf. How you could cast aspersions on the character of such a fine, long-standing pillar of the Accyweb community is beyond me. Shame on you.

Tealeaf · 27-07-2004, 16:54

I'm sure she can take it.

Acrylic-bob · 27-07-2004, 18:38

I was thinking about this report today, as you do, particularly the bit where the writer decides to write from the perspective of 2024 rather than 2004, to keep it positive.
And it occurred to me to wonder what the reports written twenty years ago might say about where they thought that we should be now and how accurate they were in acheiving their goals and targets. I have the feeling that reading such a report would turn out to be an oddly instructive experience and one that would help put the current report into some sort of perspective.

sarnie boy · 13-01-2005, 20:13

people who type that much must have dead wrists
People who read that much must have dead social lives