Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-10-08 1:00 PM John 47 - 2013-10-08 12:18 PM Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM Oh dear, wrong again Clive! http://goo.gl/U9vG3O (lol) (lol) (lol) Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-) I don't profess to know anything about the world of business but reading your link made me realise that as a micro-scientist, Clive seems to have trouble with anything on a global scale. :-D What else would a CEO of a retail business say? ;-).....................they're hardly going to dis their own business *-)............. Or as they call it in the trade ;-)..............."Doing a Ratner" (lol) (lol) (lol) Rubbish! These are people with bricks and mortar stores as well as online operations. They know as I do that the volume sold online will grow, but they also know, as I do, that retail stores will still be important. I'll give you an example. A major camera manufacturer gave Amazon a model which was identical to the 'normal' model but it had a different name. This would have allowed Amazon to make a slightly better margin as they had, in theory, no competition for that model. Customers had nothing to compare so the theory was that they would assume that Amazon was as competitive as it usually is. So what happened? They hardly sold any! And this was because people, when buying certain kinds of merchandise, want to see it and handle it first so they 'showroom' which means going to shop, looking at it and then buying it online. But the job of a good retailer is to persuade them to buy it from him when he pops into their shop. We do this by being competitive and even if we may be a few pounds more the customer is often impressed by the service and the security of realising that we are there to help, that he'll buy it from us. This works for me, to the tune of sales of £10 million in the next year, a like for like increase of about 15-20%. CliveH comes out with all this silly crap about how retail isn't the thing to be in (a bit like IFAs from what I read!) and pours scorn on me being a shopkeeper. But what should I do? Sack all my staff, renege on my leases and liquidate? When I became a retailer forty years ago I'd no idea that there'd be such a sea-change in retailing, who did? Well, Clive of course, we all know that. I sure that he knew exactly that the Internet would be invented and exactly what would happen, he's so knowledgeable about everything. But I'm a lesser mortal and can't see into the future so for now I'm stuck with it. And I'm happy to be stuck with it. It's profitable, it's made me relatively wealthy and it continues to grow. But as soon as it isn't profitable, if that day ever comes, I gradually move into something else and in twenty years we may well be selling sandwiches! Multinational suppliers, the Canons, Panasonics and Sonys of this world have woken up to the dangers of a scenario where there is nowhere where customers can handle their products and are throwing money at people like me. I've just opened a beautiful store in Liverpool and most of the showcases are dedicated to various companies, and they've paid between £10K and £20K to have their Panasonic showcase or the Leica section of the shop. Yes, online sales will grow, but the company bosses are right, for certain products bricks and mortar stores are vital. The secret is to be better than your competitors and survive as we have done. Now that Jessops and others have folded we are the only specialist photo shop in ten towns and are reaping the benefit. Two tweets from many on my firm's Twitter account: Purchased a Canon 16-35 from Bury store. Felt good buying something from a high street store instead of the faceless web. New camera bag just arrived from WilkiCameras. Fast delivery and great price too. Shops or online? We go for both! The high street will survive, yes it will be smaller, but it will always be there because that's what people want! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 1:37 PM 1. OH dear - another Ad Hom because John is caught out when asked a simply question - you lack the ability to deal with anything in depth John. 2. As for the Global/Micro issue - not very bright are you John. 3. When you are trying to be clever - in the real world (for you john - that is "global") try looking at what industry is saying about the stupidity of Carbon Taxes:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10358461/Carbon-tax-too-expensive-says-industry.html 4. What is it about the "tourniquet round the neck of the planet to cure a nose bleed" analogy that you fail to appreciate? *-) 1. Which particular question was it that you think I was caught out on, then? 2. Sorry - I didn't realise that you and Frank had the same inability to take a joke 3. Thanks for another good laugh - you criticise Frank for linking to a newspaper article giving the retail point of view on a "they would say that wouldn't they?" basis and fail to see that you have laid yourself well and truly open to the same "they would say that, wouldn't they?" argument by linking to an article written by industrialists saying why they shouldn't be taxed! 4. Absolutely nothing - I appreciated the laugh. But you haven't answered the question. Was it in the pub or the back of a taxi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 1:28 PM Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM CliveH - 2013-10-07 5:21 PM But retail is very much like you Frank - bit of a Dinosaur. (lol) Oh dear, wrong again Clive! http://goo.gl/U9vG3O (lol) (lol) (lol) Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-) You do make me laugh Frank - like a group of "Global Retail Bosses" would say any different! Frankly Frank! - who are you trying to kid! RM shares - for you I would recommend them - the clapped out business model and liabilities are right up your street! (lol) (lol) (lol) Stick to your latest career Clive, as you've proved to me over and over again you know sod all about business! I don't claim to know anything about giving financial advice and wouldn't try to tell you your business. I'm not sure why you feel you have the knowledge or experience to tell me anything about retailing! Do you think we don't know the trends or what our customers want? I would remind you of where we both were thirty years ago and where we are now. You really shouldn't have the nerve to try to tell me anything about business with your record! I loved your analysis of the Royal Mail flotation. There's going to be less snail mail! Well I never! There is also going to be an explosion in online sales, as we've already discussed, and the Royal Mail is poised to scoop up a large chunk. Snail mail is peanuts in comparison to the potential parcel and small packages business! Real business analysts, as opposed to small town financial advisors, know that the RM is undervalued! So what's your excuse going to be when the shares rise and all those who didn't take your advice make a lot of money! I'm sure you'll find a way of weaseling out though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Well, I knew the factors behind climate change were many and various but until now, I didn't realise that the main culprit was Royal Mail :-D And for the benefit of Clive and Frank ---- that is what we call a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 John 47 - 2013-10-08 1:46 PM 3. Thanks for another good laugh - you criticise Frank for linking to a newspaper article giving the retail point of view on a "they would say that wouldn't they?" basis and fail to see that you have laid yourself well and truly open to the same "they would say that, wouldn't they?" argument by linking to an article written by industrialists saying why they shouldn't be taxed! I know, you couldn't make him up could you? If it accords with his views it's gospel, but if it doesn't they're just making it up! He doesn't change and eventually you'll learn that it's a bit pointless arguing with him. Having said that I think I've had enough for now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 John 47 - 2013-10-08 12:12 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 11:52 AM 1. ......you could not bring yourself to even answer the relative concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere right at the the start so no change from you throughout it seems. 2. As for my questions of you - I have asked repeatedly for a comment from you on the stupidity of Europe having a CO2 quota such that we have to get other countries to slash and burn their indigenous rain forests so we can import the Palm Oil they produce. The Knock on effect on that environment is truly horrendous and it is all done via the belief system born of the Alarmist Hype. Answer me honestly John, if you can, what are your views on this? So much nonsense but once again I will pick out the most nonsensical among them. 1. Your question about how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere displays more than anything else how you misunderstand the whole thing. It was clearly asked in the hope that others reading this would say "that's not much, so what's the problem". It was a silly question so it deserved to be ignored. What is important is not that the concentration in the atmosphere is around a third of one percent. What is important is the effect that amount has on us and how much it has increased or decreased over time. Thus the significant figure is the 20% MEASURED increase over the past 50 years and how this is effecting the behaviour of the climate machine. To use a simple analogy, we all have many minute trace elements in our bodies. They are essential to life but too much of them can have fatal consequences. 2. I haven't noticed that question before but since you ask it, I believe that the quotas are nonsense - so that is at least one thing we can agree on. However, I have never said that the human response to climate change is always sensible and you cannot justify ignoring the whole problem because of one bad measure. And I note you are still referring to the findings of over 1300 of the world's top climate scientists as "Alarmist". Silly man. I also note that your "evidence" is now reduced to an opinion column in the Daily Telegraph and a comment you heard a while ago - was it in the local pub by any chance? Or perhaps the back of a taxi? (lol) Re you first point - I mentioned the Booker column simply because you had intimated that I was somehow isolated - and I cited this simply to point out - as indeed I stated - that the MSM is now picking up the debacle that is Alarmist claptrap on AGW. What is it with you John - you are rally quite a nasty individual when cornered - You say Telegraph Pub or Taxi - where did that come from and how adult is that comment - And coming from someone who cited a 14 year old BBC article without the foggiest idea of what it and subsequent research showed - your comment is once again - straight from the playground. As Per point 1 - it is not a silly question because you kept indicating that an increase in CO2 would be a bad thing and yet you clearly have no idea that Plants evolved when CO2 levels were much MUCH higher. That is why crop yields increase when Market Gardeners increase CO2 concentrations. Again - not really up to speed here are you *-) But the crucial point is the assumption in all the Alarmist Models that increased CO2 leads to a run away effect with water vapour and the so called run away greenhouse effect. Current data now indicates that the models are wraong to assume a positive feedback and a negative to neutral feedback is reality. So the point I am making that you seem unable or unwilling to understand is that current CO2 levels can go higher and all that would happen is plant crop yield would increase. And you state that my pointing this out is so "silly" it can be ignored. Well it might need to be ingored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance - but for the rest of us - it is a relevant point. But you carry on and ignore it if you wish - I like a laugh as much as the next bloke (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:01 PM And you state that my pointing this out is so "silly" it can be ignored. Well it might need to be ingored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance - but for the rest of us - it is a relevant point. This from the man who is constantly accusing others of ad hominem! What a bloody hypocrite! I think he's getting rattled! (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 1:53 PM John 47 - 2013-10-08 1:46 PM 3. Thanks for another good laugh - you criticise Frank for linking to a newspaper article giving the retail point of view on a "they would say that wouldn't they?" basis and fail to see that you have laid yourself well and truly open to the same "they would say that, wouldn't they?" argument by linking to an article written by industrialists saying why they shouldn't be taxed! I know, you couldn't make him up could you? If it accords with his views it's gospel, but if it doesn't they're just making it up! He doesn't change and eventually you'll learn that it's a bit pointless arguing with him. Having said that I think I've had enough for now! You too really are twins aren't you - both fail to read what is there. The Telegraph article states that industrialists fear they will lose competiveness due to a ridiculous tax. Retail marketing will continue to lose competiveness because peoples purchasing patterns change. To a simpletons mind I suspect the two concepts are indistinguishable. And my my - we have two on here. Aren't we blessed (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:06 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:01 PM And you state that my pointing this out is so "silly" it can be ignored. Well it might need to be ingored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance - but for the rest of us - it is a relevant point. This from the man who is constantly accusing others of ad hominem! What a bloody hypocrite! I think he's getting rattled! (lol) (lol) (lol) Oh dear - you should find out what an Ad Hominem argument actually is Frank before you try to use it as a descriptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:01 PM 1. What is it with you John - you are rally quite a nasty individual when cornered - You say Telegraph Pub or Taxi - where did that come from and how adult is that comment - And coming from someone who cited a 14 year old BBC article without the foggiest idea of what it and subsequent research showed - your comment is once again - straight from the playground. 2. it is not a silly question because you kept indicating that an increase in CO2 would be a bad thing and yet you clearly have no idea that Plants evolved when CO2 levels were much MUCH higher. That is why crop yields increase when Market Gardeners increase CO2 concentrations. Well, I'll give you full marks for persistence! 1. You produce newspaper opinion and "something you heard once" as evidence and you are surprised when I point out that these are hardly the most reliable sources! And you still cling to that 1999 article I quoted even though you know very well that it was the excellent explanation of the process I was referring to rather than the figures (which I did not mention). Can you not see the irony involved in a comparison of those two things? Probably not, because you did not see the irony in your previous post about industrialists complaining they were being taxed! 2. I do not - and never have - used phrases such as "an increase in CO2 would be a bad thing". I leave meaningless generalisations like that up to you. I have criticised you for saying that it is not to be worried about when all you produce in evidence is that market gardeners get better results by increasing CO2. I ask you again the question which you have ignored so many times - can you not see the difference between small-scale market gardening processes and global changes? I'll give you a clue: when a market gardener pumps CO2 into the environment around his plants there is not likely to be any effect on the ice caps! Mind you, if enough of them did it.................... (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:07 PM The Telegraph article states that industrialists fear they will lose competiveness due to a ridiculous tax. Well they would say that, wouldn't they? (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:10 PM Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:06 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:01 PM And you state that my pointing this out is so "silly" it can be ignored. Well it might need to be ingored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance - but for the rest of us - it is a relevant point. This from the man who is constantly accusing others of ad hominem! What a bloody hypocrite! I think he's getting rattled! (lol) (lol) (lol) Oh dear - you should find out what an Ad Hominem argument actually is Frank before you try to use it as a descriptive. From Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. 'Made personally against an opponent' - would that be something like "Well it might need to be ignored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance?" (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I think I know what it is, it's you (as usual) who doesn't! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 John 47 - 2013-10-08 2:18 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:07 PM The Telegraph article states that industrialists fear they will lose competiveness due to a ridiculous tax. Well they would say that, wouldn't they? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I presented no "evidence" that I heard "once" - I presented a comment that I heard once. The Nosebleed and Tourniquet analogy. Why do you persist in trying to make out I did something I did not? And evidence please that it is the increase in CO2 that is the driver of Climate Change and how much Climate Change is natural variability? And again you miss the point re what plants require for optimum growth. None so blind as those that will not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:23 PM I presented no "evidence" that I heard "once" - I presented a comment that I heard once. The Nosebleed and Tourniquet analogy. I heard once that if everybody in China simultaneously jumped off a table the world would come to an end. I suppose, from what you are saying that it must be true, then? (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:19 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:10 PM Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:06 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:01 PM And you state that my pointing this out is so "silly" it can be ignored. Well it might need to be ingored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance - but for the rest of us - it is a relevant point. This from the man who is constantly accusing others of ad hominem! What a bloody hypocrite! I think he's getting rattled! (lol) (lol) (lol) Oh dear - you should find out what an Ad Hominem argument actually is Frank before you try to use it as a descriptive. From Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. 'Made personally against an opponent' - would that be something like "Well it might need to be ignored by monumentally stupid people like yourself who have an arrogance born of ignorance?" (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I think I know what it is, it's you (as usual) who doesn't! ;-) Well no actually - it isn't - what I dis was simply being rude to an individual. An ad hom argument would be my saying that because John is Socialist - he would believe in limate Change. It is linking two things that are not linked to try to make an argument. In the debate against abortion - Catholics were often told by pro abortionsts "well you would say that wouldn't you" Interestingly - you often use Ad Homs by questioning anything I say on any subject because I am and IFA. I try not to use such false linking because they tend to be used by the unintelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 John 47 - 2013-10-08 2:31 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:23 PM I presented no "evidence" that I heard "once" - I presented a comment that I heard once. The Nosebleed and Tourniquet analogy. I heard once that if everybody in China simultaneously jumped off a table the world would come to an end. I suppose, from what you are saying that it must be true, then? (lol) (lol) (lol) You would believe any nonsense it seems John - you crack on - it is a free world. It is an analogy you muppet - in case you are worried - the world does not really have a nose bleed (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 You would believe any nonsense it seems John - you crack on - it is a free world. It is an analogy you muppet - in case you are worried - the world does not really have a nose bleed (lol) Sorry - I once again forgot that you have no sense of humour. I have repeatedly tried to engage in serious debate but in view of your inability to understand anything from simple definitions to complex cycles, I have now decided to just enjoy myself. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Which means of course that having no answers or being unwilling deal with complex questions posed such as the fate of the rain forests when an EU target causes habitat destruction - you are now just going to act the fool. Play ground stuff from you again John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:33 PM It is an analogy you muppet - He's getting rattled again! Go easy on him John! (lol) Anyway, must dash to see my IFA to discuss what to do with the profit when I sell my Royal Mail shares. Clive rubbished them so that was good enough for me. I've gone for a bundle! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:20 PM John 47 - 2013-10-08 2:18 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:07 PM The Telegraph article states that industrialists fear they will lose competiveness due to a ridiculous tax. Well they would say that, wouldn't they? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) When the jobs go to China and India etc - tell that to those who lost their jobs. It is bad enough when a normal product lifecycle dictates that job losses are required. But for Governments to create a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:50 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:33 PM It is an analogy you muppet - He's getting rattled again! Go easy on him John! (lol) Anyway, must dash to see my IFA to discuss what to do with the profit when I sell my Royal Mail shares. Clive rubbished them so that was good enough for me. I've gone for a bundle! ;-) You wish! Frank - I doubt you will ever change - your personality is such that I suspect you can light up a room just by leaving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:50 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:33 PM It is an analogy you muppet - He's getting rattled again! Go easy on him John! (lol) Anyway, must dash to see my IFA to discuss what to do with the profit when I sell my Royal Mail shares. Clive rubbished them so that was good enough for me. I've gone for a bundle! ;-) Really? I would not even lift a bumcheek to break wind for £750 But if that is what constitutes a "bundle" for you Frank - you go knock yourself out. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 CliveH - 2013-10-08 3:25 PM Had Enough - 2013-10-08 2:50 PM CliveH - 2013-10-08 2:33 PM It is an analogy you muppet - He's getting rattled again! Go easy on him John! (lol) Anyway, must dash to see my IFA to discuss what to do with the profit when I sell my Royal Mail shares. Clive rubbished them so that was good enough for me. I've gone for a bundle! ;-) Really? I would not even lift a bumcheek to break wind for £750 But if that is what constitutes a "bundle" for you Frank - you go knock yourself out. *-) I thought you knew all about these things Clive? £750 is the minimum figure. That's to deter people like you who'd want to spend a couple of hundred quid! ;-) I've applied for a lot more than the minimum! If there's anything else you need to know about buying R.M. shares don't hesitate to ask. !'ll let you know how many I'm granted! (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Fair comment Frank. I could have worded that far better. But do not get too excited about how many you get allocated. With 70% going to institutional investors, private Investors will be rationed and are likely to get not much more than the minimum. If as is expected the clammer for shares carries on, then the price will be artificially hiked and Private Investors - Lemming Like - will buy more at inflated prices from the Institutions as they sell of their 70% or a reasonable proportion of it. The sell of from the Investment Houses will probably cause a rebound sell off from disillusioned private investors and the price will fall. Institutional Investors have indicated they do not see RM shares as a long term hold. But like I say Frank - you knock yourself out. For those that want a bigger exposure (goodness knows why) - Our house view is to use those Fund Houses that are going to purchase their allocated slice of the 70% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.