SS, OS9, Netscape crashing SS.
T i m
I'm currently evaluating SheepShaver re it being a solution for Dads
upgrade and I've also got it on here (XP, as that's what I'm in most
the time).
When I launch Netscape (the one that comes with OS9.0.4) it goes to
the Demon / home page but then crashes. iCab is ok.
I particularly need Netscape as that's currently screwed on Dads iMac
/ OS9 and he's talking about getting 'someone in' to sort it for him.
I do get conflicting reports though, first it was no address bar, then
all ok, then completely dead and from an MSN chat with Mum just now,
he's getting emails so can't be a connectivity issue.
So all I'd like to be able to do is mimick what they are doing on his
iMac on this PC so I can tell them what to click on and what should
happen etc.
So, how do I launch Netscape (Communicator?) and stop it going to the
Demon home page please?
Cheers, T i m
p.s. SS seems slightly more stable under OSX than it does XP.
Martin-S
T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> So, how do I launch Netscape (Communicator?) and stop it going to the
> Demon home page please?
My first guess is to delete its preferences in System Folder >
Preferences > (username) Netscape Preferences.
Or simply disconnect the Mac from the network and set a different page
as the home page.
--
Martin
T i m
wrote:
>In article <fufle5d0to5sm3018...@4ax.com>,
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, how do I launch Netscape (Communicator?) and stop it going to the
>> Demon home page please?
>
>My first guess is to delete its preferences in System Folder >
>Preferences > (username) Netscape Preferences.
That's what I was looking for, thanks.
>
>Or simply disconnect the Mac from the network and set a different page
>as the home page.
Doh! (look I've got a cold ok). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Stewart Smith
>
> So, how do I launch Netscape (Communicator?) and stop it going to the
> Demon home page please?
>
What about launching it with the machine not connected to the internet?
Then it would fail to open the page that's causing it to crash and
hopefully letting you get to the prefs to change the homepage. Google
works on a decrepit Netscape 4.79 I've been using recently on a legacy
machine here (not mac).
Stew
T i m
wrote:
>In article <fufle5d0to5sm3018...@4ax.com>,
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, how do I launch Netscape (Communicator?) and stop it going to the
>> Demon home page please?
>
>My first guess is to delete its preferences in System Folder >
>Preferences > (username) Netscape Preferences.
"An error occurred" when restarting Navigator.
>
>Or simply disconnect the Mac from the network and set a different page
>as the home page.
Sorted and I may now see what he's done.
On Navigator within Communicator there are little tabs next to the
toolbars. If he had turned the Location toolbar tab down (up?) it
wouldn't be displayed, so, when I asked him to see if the toolbar
itself was turned on in the View > Toolbars and he said it was it made
no difference when he turned it on or off (as it wouldn't (to a noob)
as the view was collapsed).
Let's hope that's all it is.
T i m
T i m
wrote:
Yeah, thanks, that's what I've just done and that caught it ta. ;-)
When I ran a 'Help Desk' for 5 years I found duplicating the customers
screen was an invaluable support aid. Remote_access_to was even better
(but not always possible).
By being able to duplicate Dad's (OS9) setup here may well have
highlighted what he could have done.
Cheers, T i m
p.s. Years ago I was talking an engineer (technician <g>) through a
problem with a Token ring bridge that was based on a PC platform. It
booted from a floppy and some files had been corrupted.
I was talking him through the process over the phone (he was 'Up
Norf')
Me: Right, "copy *.cfg b:"
Him: Bad command or filename?
Me: Dir
Him: A list of files
Me: Good, Dir b:
Him: A different list of files.
Me: Good, copy *.cfg b:
Him: Bad command or filename.
Me: tell me chr by chr what you are typing.
Him: c o p e y .....
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> p.s. Years ago I was talking an engineer (technician <g>)
Why grin? Technicians passing themselves off as engineers is a problem
in society for lots of reasons.
I don't let 'em get away with it, talking to me.
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> p.s. Years ago I was talking an engineer (technician <g>)
>
>Why grin?
Because it was a particular issue for someone on here so I was being
PC. ;-)
> Technicians passing themselves off as engineers is a problem
>in society for lots of reasons.
You could well be right. Not sure what any title would guarantee
though?
Anyway, I made the error of using the term Engineer the way most
people accept / use the term (incorrectly or otherwise). Just in the
same way they use the term mechanic when most often they are actually
fitters (these days) or welders when they are fabricators, builders
when they are d-i-y folk. My point was re the generic use of these
terms to purvey the spirit of the requirement of the service, rather
than a job specification as such.
"Do you know a welder" means they have a couple of bits of metal they
want stuck together. "Know anyone who can weld stainless" is probably
someone who knows that the requirement for the kit / skill needs to be
different. Do you know any 'engineers' probably means they need some
metal turning or milling, not that they want a bridge designed.
Further I don't think they (ordinary people [1]) care what
qualifications the person's got, just that they can do the job.
>
>I don't let 'em get away with it, talking to me.
Bloody right too. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] As opposed to someone being employed for a specific project by
'industry'.
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> p.s. Years ago I was talking an engineer (technician <g>)
> >
> >Why grin?
>
> Because it was a particular issue for someone on here so I was being
> PC. ;-)
Erm?
> > Technicians passing themselves off as engineers is a problem
> >in society for lots of reasons.
>
> You could well be right.
I /am/ right. Engineers are not given the respect they deserve because
so many moronic ignorant semi-trained technicians end up being called
engineers so society thinks that an `engineer' is the grease monkey who
fixes your washing machine when in fact it's engineers who *design* the
thing.
And that harms society as a whole.
> Not sure what any title would guarantee
> though?
<puzzled> Nothing, of course. What a curious issue to raise.
> Anyway, I made the error of using the term Engineer the way most
> people accept / use the term (incorrectly or otherwise).
And I'm working against that problematic usage, much as people worked
against the common usage of words like `Paki' and `Wog' and `Poof' back
in the 1980s; much as all those `humourless' feminists back then
objected to the jokes about how women - oh god, I don't know, I never
found that sort of joke comprehensible, let alone funny.
And I'm doing it with the intention of dealing with a social problem,
much as was done with `Paki' and `Wog' and - all the rest like that...
> Just in the
> same way they use the term mechanic when most often they are actually
> fitters (these days) or welders when they are fabricators, builders
> when they are d-i-y folk.
Not at all. The distinction between those is both blurred and not
problematic - except that I've never come across any confusion between
`builders' and `DIY folk' and any distinction between a `welder' and a
`fabricator' is purely a matter for the firm which has chosen to use
those terms - it defines them itself.
The distinction between an engineer and a technician is rather greater
than that between a mechanic and a fitter.
>My point was re the generic use of these
> terms to purvey the spirit of the requirement of the service, rather
> than a job specification as such.
You what?
> "Do you know a welder" means they have a couple of bits of metal they
> want stuck together.
Naturally. If someone's wanting to have someone weld up the primary
pressure containment vessel for their new 300MW nuclear reactor, they'll
not be asking their mates down the pub or flipping through the Yellow
Pages, will they?
>"Know anyone who can weld stainless" is probably
> someone who knows that the requirement for the kit / skill needs to be
> different. Do you know any 'engineers' probably means they need some
> metal turning or milling, not that they want a bridge designed.
Hmm - `Do you know a light engineering firm' would get you access to the
man and his lathe, and is perfectly proper.
> Further I don't think they (ordinary people [1]) care what
> qualifications the person's got, just that they can do the job.
Yers.... And so one of the professions that is the foundation of
civilization is permanently undervalued where that usage occurs - all
down to this tacit acceptance that the ignorance of the masses is a good
basis on which to order society.
Is that sensible, do you think?
(no, I do not propose that any centrally-ordered society could overcome
that problem - I'm anti-fascist, anti-`Soviet', anti-government
generally really. Best to think of me as an anarchist)
<shrug> For some reason, we have a society where doctors get more
respect than engineers, and that can't be right. Should be the other
way round (doctors are semi-educated technicians who somehow have conned
us into giving them the respect one should only give dedicated and
reliable professionals).
> >I don't let 'em get away with it, talking to me.
>
> Bloody right too. ;-)
>
> Cheers, T i m
>
> [1] As opposed to someone being employed for a specific project by
> 'industry'.
Whatever you might be referring to...
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> > Technicians passing themselves off as engineers is a problem
>> >in society for lots of reasons.
>>
>> You could well be right.
>
>I /am/ right. Engineers are not given the respect they deserve because
>so many moronic ignorant semi-trained technicians end up being called
>engineers so society thinks that an `engineer' is the grease monkey who
>fixes your washing machine when in fact it's engineers who *design* the
>thing.
Isn't it a 'Design Engineer' who designs stuff, just in the same way
as an Architect designs the house the builder builds?
>
>> Anyway, I made the error of using the term Engineer the way most
>> people accept / use the term (incorrectly or otherwise).
>
>And I'm working against that problematic usage,
But it doesn't matter how incorrectly it's used by those for whom it
doesn't have your specific interpretation does it? Just in the same
way I can differentiat between someone calling themselves a 'Manager'
in a small company and a Manager in a multinational or whatever. I'm
not confused.
>> Just in the
>> same way they use the term mechanic when most often they are actually
>> fitters (these days) or welders when they are fabricators, builders
>> when they are d-i-y folk.
>
>Not at all. The distinction between those is both blurred and not
>problematic -
Like the interpretation of 'Engineer' for (I suggest) most people
then?
>
>The distinction between an engineer and a technician is rather greater
>than that between a mechanic and a fitter.
For you? "I need to get a TV engineer ..." means "I need to call
someone to fix my TV". The person with the duff TV doesn't give a F
what qualifications said 'engineer' has nor what their title should or
shouldn't be, just that they get their TV fixed.
>
>>My point was re the generic use of these
>> terms to purvey the spirit of the requirement of the service, rather
>> than a job specification as such.
>
>You what?
See above.
>
>> "Do you know a welder" means they have a couple of bits of metal they
>> want stuck together.
>
>Naturally. If someone's wanting to have someone weld up the primary
>pressure containment vessel for their new 300MW nuclear reactor, they'll
>not be asking their mates down the pub or flipping through the Yellow
>Pages, will they?
Exactly, just as someone wanting their TV fixed won't demand the
person doing the work has a degree or can design TV's.
My point and as you have agreed, it only matters to those it matters
to. ;-)
>
>> Further I don't think they (ordinary people [1]) care what
>> qualifications the person's got, just that they can do the job.
>
>Yers.... And so one of the professions that is the foundation of
>civilization is permanently undervalued where that usage occurs -
Maybe but not by those who know and count. The bloke wanting his TV or
heating fixed and requests the services of a TV or heating 'Engineer'
is unlikely to ask the same people to design a new building or bridge
are they?
> all
>down to this tacit acceptance that the ignorance of the masses is a good
>basis on which to order society.
If there was a real issue / consequence you might be right.
>
>Is that sensible, do you think?
See above. ;-)
>
>
><shrug> For some reason, we have a society where doctors get more
>respect than engineers, and that can't be right.
FWIW They get little respect from me.
> Should be the other
>way round (doctors are semi-educated technicians who somehow have conned
>us into giving them the respect one should only give dedicated and
>reliable professionals).
Not conned me. But then maybe that's why I'm not confused by someone
being call an engineer rather than technician / whatever, just as
someone wanting their TV fixed or a bridge designed wouldn't be. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:25:56 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>
> >> > Technicians passing themselves off as engineers is a problem
> >> >in society for lots of reasons.
> >>
> >> You could well be right.
> >
> >I /am/ right. Engineers are not given the respect they deserve because
> >so many moronic ignorant semi-trained technicians end up being called
> >engineers so society thinks that an `engineer' is the grease monkey who
> >fixes your washing machine when in fact it's engineers who *design* the
> >thing.
>
> Isn't it a 'Design Engineer' who designs stuff, just in the same way
> as an Architect designs the house the builder builds?
Any engineer's capable of design, or they're not an engineer.
> >> Anyway, I made the error of using the term Engineer the way most
> >> people accept / use the term (incorrectly or otherwise).
> >
> >And I'm working against that problematic usage,
>
> But it doesn't matter how incorrectly it's used by those for whom it
> doesn't have your specific interpretation does it?
But it does.
>Just in the same
> way I can differentiat between someone calling themselves a 'Manager'
> in a small company and a Manager in a multinational or whatever. I'm
> not confused.
That's irrelevant.
[snip]
> >>My point was re the generic use of these
> >> terms to purvey the spirit of the requirement of the service, rather
> >> than a job specification as such.
> >
> >You what?
>
> See above.
Fuck you, then, you rudely unhelpful shit.
> >> "Do you know a welder" means they have a couple of bits of metal they
> >> want stuck together.
> >
> >Naturally. If someone's wanting to have someone weld up the primary
> >pressure containment vessel for their new 300MW nuclear reactor, they'll
> >not be asking their mates down the pub or flipping through the Yellow
> >Pages, will they?
>
> Exactly, just as someone wanting their TV fixed won't demand the
> person doing the work has a degree or can design TV's.
>
> My point and as you have agreed,
But I have not.
> it only matters to those it matters
> to. ;-)
My point is that it's a problem for the whole of society, this failure
to correctly identify engineers.
[snip]
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> Isn't it a 'Design Engineer' who designs stuff, just in the same way
>> as an Architect designs the house the builder builds?
>
>Any engineer's capable of design, or they're not an engineer.
Not always it seems ...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineer
1. (Engineering / General Engineering) a person trained in ANY branch
of the profession of engineering
2. the originator or manager of a situation, system, etc.
3. (Engineering / Mechanical Engineering) a mechanic; one who repairs
or services machines <<<<<<<<<
4. (Transport / Railways) US and Canadian the driver of a railway
locomotive <<<<<<<<<<<<
5. (Transport / Nautical Terms) an officer responsible for a ship's
engines <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
6. (Military) Informal name sapper a member of the armed forces, esp
the army, trained in engineering and construction work <<<<<<<
>>
>> But it doesn't matter how incorrectly it's used by those for whom it
>> doesn't have your specific interpretation does it?
>
>But it does.
Not to those for whom it's important? The head of a huge engineering
project isn't going to pluck some Co out the Yellow Pages because it
has the word 'Engineers' in their title are they?
John: "Ere Pete, just ad some bloke on the phone asking if we can
design a roof for their swimmin pool for the l'impics or sumfink ...
?"
Pete: "Did you give I'm a price ...?"
etc. ;-)
>
>>Just in the same
>> way I can differentiat between someone calling themselves a 'Manager'
>> in a small company and a Manager in a multinational or whatever. I'm
>> not confused.
>
>That's irrelevant.
No it's not, it's just a flexible use of a job description and not for
the reason of trying to trick anyone. A 'Lab Technician' is a known
role, a "Heating Engineer" is a know role, no confusion.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >>My point was re the generic use of these
>> >> terms to purvey the spirit of the requirement of the service, rather
>> >> than a job specification as such.
>> >
>> >You what?
>>
>> See above.
>
>Fuck you, then, you rudely unhelpful shit.
Erm, well did you really want me to repeat the same answer.
>
>> it only matters to those it matters
>> to. ;-)
>
>My point is that it's a problem for the whole of society, this failure
>to correctly identify engineers.
How can it be a problem to society when they don't have a problem? You
(and some others) may have / see a problem but I suggest the society
to which you refer doesn't.
Just in the same way the great unwashed, struggling along with Windows
don't realise they are doing so so it isn't an issue for them?
Ignorance is bliss and harmless.
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:47:20 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>
> >> Isn't it a 'Design Engineer' who designs stuff, just in the same way
> >> as an Architect designs the house the builder builds?
> >
> >Any engineer's capable of design, or they're not an engineer.
>
> Not always it seems ...
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineer
Who cares what that says?
> 1. (Engineering / General Engineering) a person trained in ANY branch
> of the profession of engineering
> 2. the originator or manager of a situation, system, etc.
> 3. (Engineering / Mechanical Engineering) a mechanic; one who repairs
> or services machines <<<<<<<<<
> 4. (Transport / Railways) US and Canadian the driver of a railway
> locomotive <<<<<<<<<<<<
> 5. (Transport / Nautical Terms) an officer responsible for a ship's
> engines <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 6. (Military) Informal name sapper a member of the armed forces, esp
> the army, trained in engineering and construction work <<<<<<<
So what?
<http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdocuments/internet/document%20library/UK-SPE
C%20Standard.pdf>
> >> But it doesn't matter how incorrectly it's used by those for whom it
> >> doesn't have your specific interpretation does it?
> >
> >But it does.
>
> Not to those for whom it's important?
But it's important to the whole of society.
[snip Idunnowhat]
Shame you're ignoring my points.
> >>Just in the same
> >> way I can differentiat between someone calling themselves a 'Manager'
> >> in a small company and a Manager in a multinational or whatever. I'm
> >> not confused.
> >
> >That's irrelevant.
>
> No it's not, it's just a flexible use of a job description and not for
> the reason of trying to trick anyone.
Wrong. But of course you won't consider my ideas - you're just
bullheadedly insisting that you're right and ignoring my points
entirely.
I should give up, but I'll keep on trying for the sake of society. Your
blinkered ignorance and idiocy here is entirely normal. I just don't
know how to deal with fuckwits like you at all - not at all.
> A 'Lab Technician' is a known
> role, a "Heating Engineer" is a know role, no confusion.
The phrase heating engineer applies to someone with degree level
qualification and full professional responsibility who designs and
supervises the construction and operation of heating systems.
The phase is also used in a problematic fashion to describe the grease
monkey who fixes your central heating system.
This confusion results in a devaluation of the role of proper engineers
rather than those `engineers' who deserve the title `technician'.
And this, has you refuse to acknowledge, is where the problem lies.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
<snip Roland going off on schedule and me not wanting to drop to that
level>
>> A 'Lab Technician' is a known
>> role, a "Heating Engineer" is a know role, no confusion.
>
>The phrase heating engineer applies to someone with degree level
>qualification and full professional responsibility who designs and
>supervises the construction and operation of heating systems.
>
>The phase is also used in a problematic fashion to describe the grease
>monkey who fixes your central heating system.
>
>This confusion results in a devaluation of the role of proper engineers
>rather than those `engineers' who deserve the title `technician'.
>
>And this, has you refuse to acknowledge, is where the problem lies.
>
Ok. I'll agree with you if that's what you want me to do.
Now, is that better?
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> <snip Roland going off on schedule and me not wanting to drop to that
> level>
I'd appreciate an apology for that sneering insult.
> >> A 'Lab Technician' is a known
> >> role, a "Heating Engineer" is a know role, no confusion.
> >
> >The phrase heating engineer applies to someone with degree level
> >qualification and full professional responsibility who designs and
> >supervises the construction and operation of heating systems.
> >
> >The phase is also used in a problematic fashion to describe the grease
> >monkey who fixes your central heating system.
> >
> >This confusion results in a devaluation of the role of proper engineers
> >rather than those `engineers' who deserve the title `technician'.
> >
> >And this, has you refuse to acknowledge, is where the problem lies.
> >
> Ok. I'll agree with you if that's what you want me to do.
>
> Now, is that better?
No, since you're lying.
I want you to understand my point - you don't have to agree, but I want
you to understand. You seem uninterested in trying to understand my
point, but instead seem to be trying to get me to agree with your point
instead.
I have no interest in that at all - I'm just trying to explain an idea
which you don't seem to want to know about.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> Ok. I'll agree with you if that's what you want me to do.
>>
>> Now, is that better?
>
>No, since you're lying.
So you can read the spirit of some things I say then? ;-)
>
>I want you to understand my point - you don't have to agree, but I want
>you to understand. You seem uninterested in trying to understand my
>point, but instead seem to be trying to get me to agree with your point
>instead.
Of course I understand your words and the consequences you believe to
occur because of them. However I don't agree with your view and I'm
certainly not bothered if you agree with mine or not. It's not an
issue to me if you don't agree with what I believe to be the facts.
> ..- I'm just trying to explain an idea
>which you don't seem to want to know about.
Do I have to say "I hear what you say and comprehend what you are
saying but I don't agree with your view and here is my counter view"
every time I reply?
You obviously have strong views on this and have admitted it's a bit
of a crusade for you.
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> Ok. I'll agree with you if that's what you want me to do.
> >>
> >> Now, is that better?
> >
> >No, since you're lying.
>
> So you can read the spirit of some things I say then? ;-)
If by that you mean that I can spot certain kinds of total fucking
bullshit - why yes, I can indeed.
> >I want you to understand my point - you don't have to agree, but I want
> >you to understand. You seem uninterested in trying to understand my
> >point, but instead seem to be trying to get me to agree with your point
> >instead.
>
> Of course I understand your words
That statement contradicts your words previously in this thread.
You're not exactly doing yourself any favours here, you know.
> and the consequences you believe to
> occur because of them.
Please don't insult me by attributing `beliefs' to me.
I'm telling you about the measured consequences which are known
certainly to be a major problem in UK society, having been firmly
identified as such some decades ago.
You have decided that you already know that these measurements are wrong
and invalid, despite knowning nothing at all about the details. No, you
`know' what you `know', and refuse to contemplate that evidence which
contradicts your mistaken notions might be worth looking at.
It's called blinkered bigotry.
>However I don't agree with your view and I'm
> certainly not bothered if you agree with mine or not. It's not an
> issue to me if you don't agree with what I believe to be the facts.
The issue here is that you've ignored my viewpoint having made no
attempt to understand it.
> > ..- I'm just trying to explain an idea
> >which you don't seem to want to know about.
>
> Do I have to say "I hear what you say and comprehend what you are
> saying but I don't agree with your view and here is my counter view"
> every time I reply?
Of course not, that'd just be annoying because it'd be bullshit.
> You obviously have strong views on this and have admitted it's a bit
> of a crusade for you.
<shrug> That's just more nasty insults from you, Tim. Why do it?
I'm getting rather sick of your attitude.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> So you can read the spirit of some things I say then? ;-)
>
>If by that you mean that I can spot certain kinds of total fucking
>bullshit - why yes, I can indeed.
Or you think you can.
>
>> >I want you to understand my point - you don't have to agree, but I want
>> >you to understand. You seem uninterested in trying to understand my
>> >point, but instead seem to be trying to get me to agree with your point
>> >instead.
>>
>> Of course I understand your words
>
>That statement contradicts your words previously in this thread.
To you. I *understand* how you might have an issue with your
perception that the miss-use of the job title 'Engineer' diminishes
it's value in society? Is that close enough? I don't believe it is the
case. Now what?
>
>You're not exactly doing yourself any favours here, you know.
Like I care, especially 'here'. ;-)
>
>> and the consequences you believe to
>> occur because of them.
>
>Please don't insult me by attributing `beliefs' to me.
Pot - kettle. You are telling me I don't understand.
>
>I'm telling you about the measured consequences which are known
>certainly to be a major problem in UK society, having been firmly
>identified as such some decades ago.
Yup, I got you right then.
>
>You have decided that you already know that these measurements are wrong
>and invalid, despite knowning nothing at all about the details.
I have my understanding of the actual consequences.
> No, you
>`know' what you `know', and refuse to contemplate that evidence which
>contradicts your mistaken notions might be worth looking at.
I've never said they didn't exist, just that they weren't as much of
an issue as you seem to think. Because I don't care as much as you
seem to I can't be bothered looking at the issue any further (take
that as you like).
>
>It's called blinkered bigotry.
Call it what you like. If I was 'bothered' I'd argue I'd discuss it
with you further.
>
>>However I don't agree with your view and I'm
>> certainly not bothered if you agree with mine or not. It's not an
>> issue to me if you don't agree with what I believe to be the facts.
>
>The issue here is that you've ignored my viewpoint having made no
>attempt to understand it.
How do you know that? FWIW, Haven't you done likewise?
>
>> > ..- I'm just trying to explain an idea
>> >which you don't seem to want to know about.
>>
>> Do I have to say "I hear what you say and comprehend what you are
>> saying but I don't agree with your view and here is my counter view"
>> every time I reply?
>
>Of course not, that'd just be annoying because it'd be bullshit.
To you. In actual fact it's exactly what happened but I know you won't
accept it as so.
>
>> You obviously have strong views on this and have admitted it's a bit
>> of a crusade for you.
>
><shrug> That's just more nasty insults from you, Tim. Why do it?
What, you can F and blind and that's ok (For Rowland levels of 'OK' of
course) yet I state some facts (you DO have strong views and this IS a
crusade, you actually said so previously) and I'm being insulting?
>
>I'm getting rather sick of your attitude.
You have the power, use it, OR, simply comprehend that I don't care as
much about all this as you (and the consequences to society) and let's
move on?
T i m