Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in news:4fbcf8c2$0$12270
$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk:
<snip>
> As I've been married to my engineer for over 16 years, I have a fairly > good idea of what makes you guys tick (other than that which makes most > guys tick!) :-)
> Lizzy
We're engineers, go ask Brunel.
We need someone who keeps us secured in the Real World because we're not good at that. Spend too much time trying to work out "How do I make it better?". Not good for you,
Your partner is a lucky man having someone who understands. So am I for my partner.
But we do fix stuff, even if we forget to hoover, and some of us are good cooks!
gary
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
> Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in news:4fbcf8c2$0$12270
> $5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk:
><snip>
>> As I've been married to my engineer for over 16 years, I have a fairly >> good idea of what makes you guys tick (other than that which makes most >> guys tick!) :-)
>> Lizzy
> We're engineers, go ask Brunel.
> We need someone who keeps us secured in the Real World because we're not > good at that. Spend too much time trying to work out "How do I make it > better?". Not good for you,
> Your partner is a lucky man having someone who understands. So am I for my > partner.
> But we do fix stuff, even if we forget to hoover, and some of us are good > cooks!
> gary
I noticed when I first went to university, and I still think it, that engineers end up with the best ladies.
Coincidence? I think not.
-- Quand les hommes ne peuvent changer les choses, ils changent les mots. Jean Jaure's
> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only one dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the majority might be right.
However you believe that you have presented yourself I have to tell you that you come across as a boor. I suggest that you re-read what you have written here and wait until you understand how to communicate before posting in public again.
Arguing the finer points of economic theory here is probably not a good opening gambit. Economics, the dismal science, is a very important topic and I think people underestimate it. It needs proponents who are able to communicate complex concepts in an informal and informative way. It needs someone with both an understanding of the subject and the ability engage an audience. Alas, this does not describe you.
It doesn't help that you aren't the first obnoxious economist this group has seen, and seen off. History is against you. (What is it about economics that creates jerks? Is it the same thing that attracts people with no aesthetic sense to become architects?)
I've had run-ins with economists elsewhere and some of those have also been jerks. I've told David Friedman that he is a waste of oxygen. He's a far better economist than you and is a pleasant conversationalist, provided you avoid the subject of economics.
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:12:42 PM UTC+1, Lizzy Taylor wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 15:09, GaryN wrote:
> > Brett Dunbar
> wrote in
> > news:ZrU50tWnUOvPFwfD@dimetrodon.me.uk:
> > <snip>
> >> You are the one with the attitude problem
> > <snip>
> > It's taken you this long to work that out? Buggered if I'd want you
> > working on a 5 year plan, or even a 5 minute plan.
> > I have clearly and succinctly explained that it is your pomposity that is
> > annoying. Do you want diagrams or would a sledgehammer be more
> > appropriate?
>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:
>$b8w4vXEiOvPF...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>> In message <A62dnfxGsueTQyHSnZ2dnUVZ_tedn...@wightman.ca>, Larry Moore
>> <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> writes
>>>The economics faculty office is next door to the theology department,
>>> but they dream of being in the Science Building.
>> Microeconomics at least is science, it involves controlled experiments
>> to test hypothesis. The experimental demonstration of the existence of
>> Giffen goods by Jensen and Millar for example.
>I think you've just taken up the job of winding him up Larry, I won't
>stop but I will back off a bit.
>Perhaps he might explain, in simple terms for an engineer like me[1],
>what the hell microeconomics is.
Micro is the basic stuff like supply and demand, pricing theory, incentives &c. The day to day basics of the economy on a household level as opposed to macroecomics, which is concerned more with the overall structure of the economy, the nature of money. Macro tends to be more historical in approach as it isn't really possible to perform experiments on that scale
Microeconomics is a branch of economics that studies the behaviour of individual households and firms in making decisions on the allocation of limited resources. Typically, it applies to markets where goods or services are bought and sold. Microeconomics examines how these decisions and behaviours affect the supply and demand for goods and services, which determines prices, and how prices, in turn, determine the quantity supplied and quantity demanded of goods and services.
This is in contrast to macroeconomics, which involves the "sum total of economic activity, dealing with the issues of growth, inflation, and unemployment." Microeconomics also deals with the effects of national economic policies (such as changing taxation levels) on the aforementioned aspects of the economy. Particularly in the wake of the Lucas critique, much of modern macroeconomic theory has been built upon 'microfoundations' — i.e. based upon basic assumptions about micro-level behaviour.
>But he won't. He'll just revert to the "I know what it is and you're
>too thick to understand" shite.
In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
>Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will >observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The >consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only >one dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that >the majority might be right.
He keeps on attacking me when I make perfectly innocuous factual comments. Case in point I merely commented that the narrator in the video Gary had posted a link to was incorrect in asserting that free climbing was permitted by OSHA rules in reply to a comment that it would not be allowed in the UK. Gary then chose to gratuitously attack me.
-- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Dunbar
> In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
> <b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>> On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
>> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will
>> observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The
>> consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only
>> one dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that
>> the majority might be right.
> He keeps on attacking me when I make perfectly innocuous factual
> comments.
Correction: he keeps attacking you when you post what you believe to be a perfectly innocuous factual answer. Learn.
>On 23/05/12 17:15, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>> In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
>> <b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>>> On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>>>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>>>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
>>> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will
>>> observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The
>>> consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only
>>> one dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that
>>> the majority might be right.
>> He keeps on attacking me when I make perfectly innocuous factual
>> comments.
>Correction: he keeps attacking you when you post what you believe to
>be a perfectly innocuous factual answer. Learn.
In this case the sum total of what I said was:
According to comments on the video on a few other sites, it
isn't allowed in the USA either, the narrator was wrong OHSA
rules do not allow free climbing.
Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> For everyone elses sake I'll stop winding up Bratt[1] now, apologies to
>>>> all.
>>>> gary
>>>> [1]Damn, keyboard seems to be stuck again..:-)
>>> The economics faculty office is next door to the theology department,
>>> but they dream of being in the Science Building.
>> Ooh! Quote? Bitte schoen?
> Bitte
> I am sure that it's not original to me but can't cite the original.
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> For everyone elses sake I'll stop winding up Bratt[1] now,
>>>>> apologies to all.
>>>>> gary
>>>>> [1]Damn, keyboard seems to be stuck again..:-)
>>>> The economics faculty office is next door to the theology
>>>> department, >>>> but they dream of being in the Science Building.
>>> Ooh! Quote? Bitte schoen?
>> Bitte
>> I am sure that it's not original to me but can't cite the original.
> You join the ranks of Gary & Rocky on there down the years. Now, does > someone whose name *doesn't* end in '-y' fancy a go? :-)
I think we got in there because we're thoughtful contentious bastards, who have the sense to realise that we may, in fact, be wrong.
As opposed to our mate Bratt[1] who is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe we should just call him Tony and send him to the Middle East.
Did you note his patronising 'explanation' of microeconomics? Like I don't know what it is! Naturally I wouldn't have a clue, what with not being a penpusher, just a son of Martha[2].
gary
[1]Keyboard still stuck..:-)
[2]Watch while he has to look that up
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
<u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> For everyone elses sake I'll stop winding up Bratt[1] now, apologies
>>>>> to
>>>>> all. gary
>>>>> [1]Damn, keyboard seems to be stuck again..:-)
>>>> The economics faculty office is next door to the theology department,
>>>> but they dream of being in the Science Building.
>>> Ooh! Quote? Bitte schoen?
>> Bitte I am sure that it's not original to me but can't cite the
>> original.
> You join the ranks of Gary & Rocky on there down the years. Now, does
> someone whose name *doesn't* end in '-y' fancy a go? :-)
I've read over 50 posts in tis (or another) thread where Brett has stated
some unreal economic theory, and GaryN has been obnoxious, I don't know
how any of this is relevant to being a fan of T.P.
> In message <4fbd10a1$0$12275$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
> <b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>>On 23/05/12 17:15, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>>> In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aa...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
>>> <b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>>>> On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>>>>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>>>>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
>>>> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will
>>>> observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The
>>>> consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be
>>>> only one dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the
>>>> possibility that the majority might be right.
>>> He keeps on attacking me when I make perfectly innocuous factual
>>> comments.
>>Correction: he keeps attacking you when you post what you believe to
>>be a perfectly innocuous factual answer. Learn.
> In this case the sum total of what I said was:
> According to comments on the video on a few other sites, it
> isn't allowed in the USA either, the narrator was wrong OHSA
> rules do not allow free climbing.
> And I then quoted an article commenting on the video in support. As
> far as I can tell that was an entirely unobjectionable posting.
I was just trying to explain that there are times when all your silly
little rules go out the window. If it becomes necessary for me to wade
waist deep in flood water to get to someone who is stranded then I will
do so. If I need to walk into a building judged 'unsafe' by the Fire
Brigade I will do so. If it's necessary for me to dive into a canal and
use an illegal knife to cut someone free of a sinking car then I'll do
that[1].
I will not stop to check the H&S regs beforehand. I'll have rescued the
victims while you're still checking the index.
There is room in the world for you Mr A. E. Pessimal. I would prefer it
to be a room a long way from me. Actually I'd prefer it to be a
different world.
gary
[1]Yes, I have done all of those things, bloody knife is still at the
bottom of the RMC.
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in news:4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aafb4
@news.zen.co.uk:
> On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will > observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The > consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only one > dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the > majority might be right.
<snip>
Thanks Bernard. I know I can be a jerk at times but at least I recognise it. Can't do much about it, just a natural talent I suppose..:-)
gary
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
>> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will
>> observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The
>> consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only one
>> dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the
>> majority might be right.
> <snip>
> Thanks Bernard. I know I can be a jerk at times but at least I recognise
> it. Can't do much about it, just a natural talent I suppose..:-)
Everyone should have a talent. Just to balance things up though I don't think you're giving Brett credit for what he knows. Understanding economics is part of learning how the world works, or sometimes doesn't. By all means shoot the messenger if he's a jerk but at least read the damn message first.
The big lesson to learn from it is that we can't blame the man behind the curtain for the world's ills, by far the worst of them are created by people unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their everyday actions.
In message <XnsA05CC4DA8F803tallkdarknands...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>Did you note his patronising 'explanation' of microeconomics? Like I
>don't know what it is! Naturally I wouldn't have a clue, what with not
>being a penpusher, just a son of Martha[2].
I only posted that *BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO* I even stated that I had
assumed you knew what it was.
To be precise you said:
Perhaps he might explain, in simple terms for an engineer like
me[1], what the hell microeconomics is.
But he won't. He'll just revert to the "I know what it is and
you're too thick to understand" shite.
I then gave an explanation in simple terms, exactly as you requested.
First in my own words and then quoting from the wikipedia article on
microeconomics. That is what you are now attacking me about. You know if
you don't want people to think you are ignorant, don't pretend to be
ignorant.
-- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Dunbar
> I've read over 50 posts in tis (or another) thread where Brett has > stated some unreal economic theory, and GaryN has been obnoxious, I > don't know how any of this is relevant to being a fan of T.P.
> Please post more about TP and his books.
You may have misunderstood the purpose of the froup.
It is for fans of TP, and for fans of TP to discuss whatever they choose to discuss (and, usually, in whatever *way* they choose to discuss them).
alt.books.pratchett exists solely (or at least primarily) for discussion of the mighty works of the OFIAH.
GaryN wrote:
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in news:4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6aafb4
> @news.zen.co.uk:
>> On 23/05/12 14:24, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>>> You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
>>> hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality.
>> Brett. If you stopped to take notice of what has been said you will >> observe that Gary is not the only one holding this opinion. The >> consensus view here is that you are a jerk. There appears to be only one >> dissenting voice. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the >> majority might be right.
> <snip>
> Thanks Bernard. I know I can be a jerk at times but at least I recognise > it. Can't do much about it, just a natural talent I suppose..:-)
That's the way, kid; always play to your strengths!
>> According to comments on the video on a few other sites, it
>> isn't allowed in the USA either, the narrator was wrong OHSA
>> rules do not allow free climbing.
>> And I then quoted an article commenting on the video in support. As
>> far as I can tell that was an entirely unobjectionable posting.
>I was just trying to explain that there are times when all your silly
>little rules go out the window. If it becomes necessary for me to wade
>waist deep in flood water to get to someone who is stranded then I will
>do so. If I need to walk into a building judged 'unsafe' by the Fire
>Brigade I will do so. If it's necessary for me to dive into a canal and
>use an illegal knife to cut someone free of a sinking car then I'll do
>that[1].
Firstly you could have stated that at the time without the insults. Secondly this wasn't an emergency situation where there isn't time to follow safety measures. It was the routine replacement of a safety beacon on the communication mast, it wasn't all that urgent. There are very few situations where climbing a mast in a hurry would be required they aren't manned.
-- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Dunbar
> We need someone who keeps us secured in the Real World because we're not
> good at that. Spend too much time trying to work out "How do I make it
> better?". Not good for you,
> Your partner is a lucky man having someone who understands. So am I for my
> partner.
I do my best, and he does the same for me.
> But we do fix stuff, even if we forget to hoover, and some of us are good
> cooks!
Oh, he is definitely a good cook, to which my waistline continues to attest.
Lizzy (geek girl married to engineer, mother to one proto-engineer & one dilettante geek)
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:44:08 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> I was just trying to explain that there are times when all your silly
> little rules go out the window. If it becomes necessary for me to wade
> waist deep in flood water to get to someone who is stranded then I will
> do so. If I need to walk into a building judged 'unsafe' by the Fire
> Brigade I will do so. If it's necessary for me to dive into a canal and
> use an illegal knife to cut someone free of a sinking car then I'll do
> that[1].
> I will not stop to check the H&S regs beforehand. I'll have rescued the
> victims while you're still checking the index.
But ISTR you yourself at different times have had to be rescued, hospitalised, arrested...
possibly rusticated but I'm not sure about
that one.
On the other hand, you started this talking
about changing a lightbulb. Which was waist deep in water in a burning building, although
I'm only saying so because just /thinking/ about what actually was apparently being shown
in the video gives me the heebie-jeebies
more than that.
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:47:59 +0100, Nigel Stapley
> <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> For everyone elses sake I'll stop winding up Bratt[1] now,
>>>>>> apologies to
>>>>>> all. gary
>>>>>> [1]Damn, keyboard seems to be stuck again..:-)
>>>>> The economics faculty office is next door to the theology
>>>>> department, >>>>> but they dream of being in the Science Building.
>>>> Ooh! Quote? Bitte schoen?
>>> Bitte I am sure that it's not original to me but can't cite the
>>> original.
>> You join the ranks of Gary & Rocky on there down the years. Now, does
>> someone whose name *doesn't* end in '-y' fancy a go? :-)
> I've read over 50 posts in tis (or another) thread where Brett has
> stated some unreal economic theory, and GaryN has been obnoxious, I
> don't know how any of this is relevant to being a fan of T.P.
> Please post more about TP and his books.
You need alt.books.pratchett.
Here we fans just argue about anything that takes our fancy, although we do on occasion discuss the books.
It's more fun here and there's chocolate and beer.
gary
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
> Oh, he is definitely a good cook, to which my waistline continues to > attest.
> Lizzy (geek girl married to engineer, mother to one proto-engineer &
> one dilettante geek)
You should worry! My partner is a software tester and very emphatically a lousy cook. I swear she can burn boiling water! And porridge, even the Scots can cook porridge..:-)
You can have 3 guesses about who does the cooking when we're sharing a meal and the first two don't count!
gary
-- "Man with a crossbow in the proper place at the proper time
is worth a corps of heavy artillery half an hour late
and ten miles down the road from where it should be"
