>Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2012 19:31, bob wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson<ce11...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:39:57 +0000, Charlie Hulme
>>>> <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2012 23:47, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Discrimination against fundamentals like religion is also not
>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>> Religion is a choice. Choosing not to drive a car is a choice.
>>>>> The difference is?
>>>> It isn't illegal to worship after getting a skinful ?
>>> Indeed drinking wine is an important part of Christian worship (unless
>>> you're a Catholic).
>> Catholics get to imbibe too!
>Yes, but they believe in transsubstantiation, so by the time they get to
>drink it, they don't believe it's wine anymore.
> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2012 19:31, bob wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson<ce11...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:39:57 +0000, Charlie Hulme
>>>> <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2012 23:47, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Discrimination against fundamentals like religion is also not
>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>> Religion is a choice. Choosing not to drive a car is a choice.
>>>>> The difference is?
>>>> It isn't illegal to worship after getting a skinful ?
>>> Indeed drinking wine is an important part of Christian worship (unless
>>> you're a Catholic).
>> Catholics get to imbibe too!
> Yes, but they believe in transsubstantiation, so by the time they get to
> drink it, they don't believe it's wine anymore.
Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/11/2012 20:03, bob wrote:
>> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2012 19:31, bob wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson<ce11...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:39:57 +0000, Charlie Hulme
>>>>> <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/11/2012 23:47, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>>>>> Discrimination against fundamentals like religion is also not
>>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>> Religion is a choice. Choosing not to drive a car is a choice.
>>>>>> The difference is?
>>>>> It isn't illegal to worship after getting a skinful ?
>>>> Indeed drinking wine is an important part of Christian worship (unless
>>>> you're a Catholic).
>>> Catholics get to imbibe too!
>> Yes, but they believe in transsubstantiation, so by the time they get to
>> drink it, they don't believe it's wine anymore.
> Surely the other lot think the same?
Protestant doctrine (both Lutheran and Calvinist) is that the body and
blood stuff is metaphorical, and the actual bread and wine remains as bread
and wine. The orthodox and Catholic lot prefer the cannibalism/theophagy
version and the CofE appears to be typically fence sitting these days
(though in the past were more strongly metaphore minded).
> Bad luck, then. Discrimination against things that people have no choice
> about e.g. sex, race, sexuality, disability etc is not acceptable. > Discrimination against fundamentals like religion is also not acceptable.
> However, discrimination against people who actively choose not to advance
> with the times is to me not unacceptable, within reason.
Why is advancing with the times necessarily a good thing?
On the other hand, why do some of you seem to assume that anyone not
doing your version of advancing with the times has chosen not to?
Why be so intolerant of other peoples' problems? Why be so ready to make
no allowance at all for the situations in which people find themselves?
They're people too you know!
> Just because some
> people refuse to use Twitter, say, is not a reason why a TOC should not use
> Twitter for communications. It's not time to close the telephone lines
> yet, nor to stop accepting letters by post, but it is not at all
> unreasonable that new media should be used for new, improved services
> suited to it. Such as fast response customer services, and perhaps
> discounts recognising the lower cost of doing some ticketing via the Web,
> say.
> To say otherwise is almost as ridiculous as saying that taxi services
> should not be offered because some people choose not to travel by car, as
> they did perfectly well beforehand, and we should all have to ride bicycles
> or horses or walk. That's preposterous; such people can still travel by
> those modes if they wish, but they have no right to prevent the rest of
> society advancing by insisting the old ways are the only ways, taking into
> account that the further the old ways go into obscurity, the more expensive
> they will get (e.g. the extra fees for purchasing an air ticket by phone
> instead of Web). Anyone who is trying to prevent that kind of development
> I will quite validly call a Luddite.
Actively opposing - Luddite.
Just not "advancing" - not a Luddite.
Simples.
> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2012 20:03, bob wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2012 19:31, bob wrote:
>>>>> Charles Ellson<ce11...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:39:57 +0000, Charlie Hulme
>>>>>> <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/11/2012 23:47, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>> Discrimination against fundamentals like religion is also not
>>>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>> Religion is a choice. Choosing not to drive a car is a choice.
>>>>>>> The difference is?
>>>>>> It isn't illegal to worship after getting a skinful ?
>>>>> Indeed drinking wine is an important part of Christian worship (unless
>>>>> you're a Catholic).
>>>> Catholics get to imbibe too!
>>> Yes, but they believe in transsubstantiation, so by the time they get to
>>> drink it, they don't believe it's wine anymore.
>> Surely the other lot think the same?
> Protestant doctrine (both Lutheran and Calvinist) is that the body and
> blood stuff is metaphorical, and the actual bread and wine remains as bread
> and wine. The orthodox and Catholic lot prefer the cannibalism/theophagy
> version and the CofE appears to be typically fence sitting these days
> (though in the past were more strongly metaphore minded).
Ah right. It's many years since I cared about such details.
> Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-15, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Funny that you immediately jump to an age related conclusion here.
>> Only an example because it's common. Taking that paragraph out wouldn't
>> change my argument at all.
> So I am the arrogant and intolerant person when it is you who has prejudged
> me, implicitly accusing me (falsely) of ageist discrimination.
I did no such thing, but never mind.
>>> The type of person I had in mind when I posted my comments about those
>>> irritating people was a specific but identifiable type from that
>>> period.
>> I think they existed, and still exist, but I don't think we can assume
>> that we are right about them. I have know people adopt a similar
>> attitude to cover their ignorance or fear of the unknown.
> All I knew have since recognised that the world has moved on, and that not
> owning a mobile in this day and age is like not being able to read and
> write. You can probably get by, but things like getting a job or actually
> participating in society are next to impossible.
Not true at all. It may be one day, but insisting that it is now is not
reasonable.
>>> I think these people made their evaluation of the benefits of owning a
>>> mobile phone only in relation to themselves. The idea that by having
>>> one, they would be able to pass information to other people to avoid
>>> those other people wasting their time seemed never to enter into the
>>> equation. To me that is a very selfish world view.
>> It is also selfish to demand that other people do things your way
>> because it is more convenient for you.
> Right, because having re-arranged my social life in a way much less
> convenient to me to accommodate their lifestyle choice only to get
> repeatedly "stood up", I am clearly the selfish one.
Not if you really do get stood up every time, on purpose, but even then
it should only be about those particular people, not you insisting on
it being a general principle.
Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-15, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The type of person I had in mind when I posted my comments about those
>>>> irritating people was a specific but identifiable type from that
>>>> period.
>>> I think they existed, and still exist, but I don't think we can assume
>>> that we are right about them. I have know people adopt a similar
>>> attitude to cover their ignorance or fear of the unknown.
>> All I knew have since recognised that the world has moved on, and that not
>> owning a mobile in this day and age is like not being able to read and
>> write. You can probably get by, but things like getting a job or actually
>> participating in society are next to impossible.
> Not true at all. It may be one day, but insisting that it is now is not
> reasonable.
Whenever I have been involved in the job-getting process, prospective
employers have made it clear that they expect to have a phone number at
which I can be reached at any time (ie a mobile). Offering only a home
land line would most likely result in my application finding its way into
the round in-tray.
>>>> I think these people made their evaluation of the benefits of owning a
>>>> mobile phone only in relation to themselves. The idea that by having
>>>> one, they would be able to pass information to other people to avoid
>>>> those other people wasting their time seemed never to enter into the
>>>> equation. To me that is a very selfish world view.
>>> It is also selfish to demand that other people do things your way
>>> because it is more convenient for you.
>> Right, because having re-arranged my social life in a way much less
>> convenient to me to accommodate their lifestyle choice only to get
>> repeatedly "stood up", I am clearly the selfish one.
> Not if you really do get stood up every time, on purpose, but even then
> it should only be about those particular people, not you insisting on
> it being a general principle.
Not every time, and no evidence of malice per se, but enough regularity and
enough correlation with "mobile phone Luddites" [1] that I and others I
know identified a generic type. Did you know many mid-20s mobile phone
Luddites in the period 2003-2007? Or perhaps you are arrogantly Imposing
your own prejudices on other demographic segments of society?
[1] yes, I do mean Luddite. As in people who not only did not have mobile
phones but also tried to convince others to abandon theirs, and evangelised
a principled anti-phone philosophy.
> Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
...
>> Not true at all. It may be one day, but insisting that it is now is not
>> reasonable.
> Whenever I have been involved in the job-getting process, prospective
> employers have made it clear that they expect to have a phone number at
> which I can be reached at any time (ie a mobile). Offering only a home
> land line would most likely result in my application finding its way into
> the round in-tray.
Not my experience.
...
>> Not if you really do get stood up every time, on purpose, but even then
>> it should only be about those particular people, not you insisting on
>> it being a general principle.
> Not every time, and no evidence of malice per se, but enough regularity and
> enough correlation with "mobile phone Luddites" [1] that I and others I
> know identified a generic type. Did you know many mid-20s mobile phone
> Luddites in the period 2003-2007?
No, none that I was aware of. But then it just never came up. I can't
recall any arrangements made that were totally dependent on mobile
phones. They were used sometimes, but there was always someone whose
phone had died and others who never seem to answer if rung, and anyone
might be in the underground or other dead spot. I don't think anyone
dropped any friends because of it.
> Or perhaps you are arrogantly Imposing
> your own prejudices on other demographic segments of society?
No. What I am doing is complaining about you and others who seem to do
exactly that, characterising other demographic segments (no, dammit,
other _people_) as irritating, unimportant, wilfully obstructive or
whatever.
> [1] yes, I do mean Luddite. As in people who not only did not have mobile
> phones but also tried to convince others to abandon theirs, and evangelised
> a principled anti-phone philosophy.
And if they were evangelising some principled philosophy that did not
concern technology, what would you call them? And would you object as
much? "Luddite" has been used here as a label for a group of people so
that they can then be marginalised. Many labels for groups of people
have been used in this way, and it is mean, nasty, and wrong.
Neil Williams <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <Recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yes, I'm perfectly capable of operating a smartphone (as I do my
>> iPad), but I choose not to have one. I also make as little use as
>> possible of my basic Nokia.
> Then you choose to decline all the extra services you can obtain by owning
> one. Smartphones of some kind are available so cheaply now that they are
> affordable to more or less anyone who can afford any kind of mobile phone. > It doesn't have to be the latest Galaxy S3 or iPhone.
I think I'm the opposite of Mr. Recliner. Since I got a proper smartphone
(as opposed to nokia which could also do web browsing) I rarely use my
'proper' computer at all.
> This is no different to those who chose to decline a home telephone 30
> years ago.
I haven't had a phone plugged into my home phone line for almost two years.
For the previous three years it had one plugged in but I didn't know the
number (I still don't).
> The 35 million figure for UK Facebook accounts is hugely misleading.
> First, it comprises all accounts, business, group and personal.
> Second, there are many accounts that are dormant. Third, some people
> have more than one account.
I suspect it comes under 'some people have more than one account' but some
accounts are not people... I am friends with two stuffed monkeys, a
headless doll, two dogs (one now deceased), a formerly-unborn baby (now
born), and a bus.
Anna Noyd-Dryver <a...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 35 million figure for UK Facebook accounts is hugely misleading.
>> First, it comprises all accounts, business, group and personal.
>> Second, there are many accounts that are dormant. Third, some people
>> have more than one account.
>I suspect it comes under 'some people have more than one account' but some
>accounts are not people... I am friends with two stuffed monkeys, a
>headless doll, two dogs (one now deceased), a formerly-unborn baby (now
>born), and a bus.
I trust that all were over the minimum age for a Facebook account,
which I believe is 13 years. Especially the formerly-unborn baby.
>>> The 35 million figure for UK Facebook accounts is hugely misleading.
>>> First, it comprises all accounts, business, group and personal.
>>> Second, there are many accounts that are dormant. Third, some people
>>> have more than one account.
>> I suspect it comes under 'some people have more than one account' but some
>> accounts are not people... I am friends with two stuffed monkeys, a
>> headless doll, two dogs (one now deceased), a formerly-unborn baby (now
>> born), and a bus.
> I trust that all were over the minimum age for a Facebook account,
> which I believe is 13 years. Especially the formerly-unborn baby.
The monkeys, dogs and baby, definitely not! The doll is of unknown
provenance, having been found abandoned on a railway line. The bus is old
enough ;)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <a...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Anthony Polson <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <a...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> I suspect it comes under 'some people have more than one account' but some
>>> accounts are not people... I am friends with two stuffed monkeys, a
>>> headless doll, two dogs (one now deceased), a formerly-unborn baby (now
>>> born), and a bus.
>> I trust that all were over the minimum age for a Facebook account,
>> which I believe is 13 years. Especially the formerly-unborn baby.
>The monkeys, dogs and baby, definitely not! The doll is of unknown
>provenance, having been found abandoned on a railway line. The bus is old
>enough ;)
Thank goodness for the bus. :-)
My comment was tongue-in-cheek. Mark Zuckerberg and his cohorts are
keen to emphasise that children under 13 cannot possibly have Facebook
accounts, but I know of some parents who have actively encouraged
their under-13s to join up.
> Anna Noyd-Dryver<a...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Anthony Polson<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver<a...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> I suspect it comes under 'some people have more than one account' but some
>>>> accounts are not people... I am friends with two stuffed monkeys, a
>>>> headless doll, two dogs (one now deceased), a formerly-unborn baby (now
>>>> born), and a bus.
>>> I trust that all were over the minimum age for a Facebook account,
>>> which I believe is 13 years. Especially the formerly-unborn baby.
>> The monkeys, dogs and baby, definitely not! The doll is of unknown
>> provenance, having been found abandoned on a railway line. The bus is old
>> enough ;)
> Thank goodness for the bus. :-)
> My comment was tongue-in-cheek. Mark Zuckerberg and his cohorts are
> keen to emphasise that children under 13 cannot possibly have Facebook
> accounts, but I know of some parents who have actively encouraged
> their under-13s to join up.
My ten year old niece has had a Facebook account for a couple of years, as has all her school friends.
> I am not looking forward to the switch-off of BBC analogue radio. Analogue
> radios are fit for purpose and cheap compared with digital sets. They also
> last for a long time, so if the published timetable is followed, there will
> be tens or hundreds of millions of functioning devices being scrapped
> unnecessarily. At least with TV, it was possible to buy a cheap set-top box
> to keep the existing TV going. I can think of no appropriate equivalent
> for a portable transistor radio or a car radio.
Me neither. I can't see a sensible DAB replacement for the radio in my bathroom - the way they go through batteries is ridiculous. My 20+ year old Sony gets a new set of 4 AAs three or four times a year.
I also don't want radios with different decoding delays on in different rooms of the house.
Sam
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>They're of questionable usability amongst the busy London airwaves >(where there are plenty of high-power transmitters of questionable >legality!).
Their capabilities in a house are best described as "variable" even
without competing transmitters which probably explains why the sales
emphasis often seems to be for use in cars or in the same room. There
used to be a YouTube video showing how to hook one up (soldering iron
and saw required) to a Band 2 aerial to get the signal down to the end
of your garden/farm/estate.
>>>> I am not altogether convinced that you are not merely arguing for the
>>>> sake of it here
>>> Try Googling for "Arthur Figgis", a character from Monty Python's
>>> Flying Circus.
>> Not to be confused with the Bruces.
> Quite. Though they never argued for the sake of it. Never.
I don't think the Bruces ever constructed a connected series of statements intended to establish a position. They were more inclined towards the automatic gainsaying of what the other person said.
<wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I guess you could do the same around the house, but I think they're >> still of questionable legality, right?
>I am fairly sure they have been fully legal for a while now.
As with CB radios, only those which conform to the relevant UK
standard (IR2030/26/2 ? - 50nW max e.r.p.). Devices not designed for
use in the EU (as e.g. someone might manage to purchase on EBay) are
still illegal even if only because there isn't the relevant "CE" mark.
> >> I guess you could do the same around the house, but I think they're > >> still of questionable legality, right?
> >I am fairly sure they have been fully legal for a while now.
> As with CB radios, only those which conform to the relevant UK
> standard (IR2030/26/2 ? - 50nW max e.r.p.). Devices not designed for
> use in the EU (as e.g. someone might manage to purchase on EBay) are
> still illegal even if only because there isn't the relevant "CE" mark.
Thanks to Mizter T for the reghardware link, but I was sure there was some niggle somewhere and now I remember this is it - at the time of legalisation there were relatively few that were approved and that memory has remained with me.
Sam
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
