[I]Jobs I don't want

[GaryN]

Got sent this from a fellow ex-glider pilot. Scared both of us just
watching it.

Warning. If you suffer from vertigo or a weak stomach do not watch this.

www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365

The guy can keep his job changing lightbulbs. Falling from there your life
wouldn't have to flash before you, a leisurely stroll would be quite
sufficient. The video only shows going up, remember they still have to go
back down (the difficult bit).

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the original sender, "Whatever
these guys are paid it's not enough"

gary

--
"What else is civilisation than the ability to make use of things invented
by someone else?"

Karel Capek (in "War With The Newts")

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Got sent this from a fellow ex-glider pilot. Scared both of us just
> watching it.
>
> Warning. If you suffer from vertigo or a weak stomach do not watch this.
>
> www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365
>
> The guy can keep his job changing lightbulbs. Falling from there your life
> wouldn't have to flash before you, a leisurely stroll would be quite
> sufficient. The video only shows going up, remember they still have to go
> back down (the difficult bit).
>
> I agree with the sentiment expressed by the original sender, "Whatever
> these guys are paid it's not enough"
>
> gary
>

Since the link doesn't work for me, could I have a keyword or two
and I might find it by another route?

--
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of laborers,
the genius of its scientists,
the hope of its children. Ike.

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bbWdnSnif-
r4ryfSnZ2dn...@wightman.ca:

> www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365

This should work

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2_player_files/mp55/player.swf?
config=http://www.liveleak.com/player?a=config%26item_token=07b_1284580365%
26embed=1%26extra_params=

Works OK on Firefox through Fester.

I hope you don't have vertigo.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bbWdnSnif-
> r4ryfSnZ2dn...@wightman.ca:
>
>> www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365
>
> This should work
>
> http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2_player_files/mp55/player.swf?
> config=http://www.liveleak.com/player?a=config%26item_token=07b_1284580365%
> 26embed=1%26extra_params=
>
> Works OK on Firefox through Fester.
>

Works under XP and Firefox but not Debian Stable.

> I hope you don't have vertigo.
>
> gary

Theoretically you could see could see the horizon 55mi (90Km?)
away, if the visibility allowed it. Above a certain height,
it doesn't matter how high you fall to earth from; it's
certainly a grand view!


--
There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake their
own opinions and beliefs for reality, i.e. universal truths.
The term is "ignoramus." ppint a.f.p

[Reader in Invisible Writings]

On 21/05/2012 11:50, GaryN wrote:
> Got sent this from a fellow ex-glider pilot. Scared both of us just
> watching it.
>
> Warning. If you suffer from vertigo or a weak stomach do not watch this.
>
> www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365
>
> The guy can keep his job changing lightbulbs. Falling from there your life
> wouldn't have to flash before you, a leisurely stroll would be quite
> sufficient. The video only shows going up, remember they still have to go
> back down (the difficult bit).
>
> I agree with the sentiment expressed by the original sender, "Whatever
> these guys are paid it's not enough"
>
> gary
>

There is no way that free climbing would be allowed in the UK - and
there are appalling breaks in the 'ladders'.

--
Reader in Invisible Writings
Something to Ponder on!

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:Waudnb3kFOCrKyfS...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-05-21, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bbWdnSnif-
>> r4ryfSnZ2dn...@wightman.ca:
>>
>>> www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365
>>
>> This should work
>>
>> http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2_player_files/mp55/player.swf?
>> config=http://www.liveleak.com/player?a=config%26item_token=07b_
128458
>> 0365% 26embed=1%26extra_params=
>>
>> Works OK on Firefox through Fester.
>>
>
> Works under XP and Firefox but not Debian Stable.
>
>> I hope you don't have vertigo.
>>
>> gary
>
> Theoretically you could see could see the horizon 55mi (90Km?)
> away, if the visibility allowed it. Above a certain height,
> it doesn't matter how high you fall to earth from; it's
> certainly a grand view!
>
>

Yeah, Terminal velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
although there was a Lancaster tail gunner who survived a fall from 10k
feet without a parachute. His aircraft was on fire, parachute gone so
he just thought "Fuck it" and stepped out (tail gunners often removed
the plexiglass to see better)

Went down between 2 trees, getting slowed down by the smaller branches,
then landed in a 10 foot snowdrift. Total damage, broken wrist and,
later, hypothermia. Wish I had his luck!

The guy in the video can still keep his job, I'll stick to sitting in
something with wings if I want to go more than 50 feet up!

[GaryN]

Reader in Invisible Writings <markfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jpegbc$1lu2$1...@mud.stack.nl:

Yep. Why do you think a pair of rock climbing, biker, glider pilots were
scared just looking at it? There isn't enough money in the world to get me
or him to do that. We take risks but we're not suicidally insane!

My friend down in London who also spends her free time trying to avoid
falling off mountains said "No fucking way" when she saw it. Similar from
my sister who sails on a racing yacht which got dismasted just off Beachy
Head.

I know plenty of people who have dangerous jobs and/or hobbies but not one
of them would take this on. Although the friend in The Smoke knows the guy
who took Clarkson on, free climbing to beat Clarkson driving.

He won. Then he won again by making a BASE jump from the top of the gorge
and beating Clarkson back to the bottom.

According to her he went out of the other side of sanity some time ago and
sooner or later a handhold (on a rockface) won't be there. Not met him so
can't comment.

Strange to have your eulogy written before you get there.

I still want this played at my funeral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbAWqYp2pwg

even if the album cover is in bad taste after 9/11..:-)

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-22, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:


> I still want this played at my funeral
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbAWqYp2pwg
>
> even if the album cover is in bad taste after 9/11..:-)
>
> gary
>

Noted.

--
Time flows upstream as well as down, which is the message brought to
Oedipus by blind Tiresias and by St. Augustine’s noticing that both
past and future, “wherever they are, whatever they are,” exist nowhere
else except in the minds of their beholders. Lewis H Lapham

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:BMGdnUjaOd1clSHS...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-05-22, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I still want this played at my funeral
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbAWqYp2pwg
>>
>> even if the album cover is in bad taste after 9/11..:-)
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> Noted.
>

Hmmm, my (casette - remember them?) copy of the album is dated 1983, 20
years before 9/11. Should we assume that Def Leppard cover art inspired
the attack?

I suppose it could happen but I never trust conspiracy theories.

My even older double casette "The Story Of The Clash" is in it's
original case. I suppose someone could make a case for "Down in a
Tubestation at Midnight" as an incentive for the 7/7 bombs but they can
keep their hands off my copy.

I like casettes and still have something that will play them.[1]

gary

[1]Easier to get Semtex than a wog box these days.

--
"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"

Gordon R. Dickson in "Tactics of Mistake"

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <jpegbc$1lu2$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Reader in Invisible Writings
<markfo...@hotmail.com> writes

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.

E.g.
<http://nationalsafety.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/video-of-radio-tower-free
-climber-is-erroneous-misleading-and-dangerous/>

I saw this video clip sometime last week and I remember thinking
“This cannot possibly be right!”

In the video clip which purports to “instruct” on procedures
for climbing communication towers, the tower technicians narrate
a free climb (with no fall protection) of a radio tower with
video being provided via a helmet cam. At one point, the
climber, talking about the fact that he is free climbing, says
“…it’s easier, faster and most tower workers climb this
way. Free climbing is more dangerous, of course, but OSHA rules
do allow for it.”

Not so says Jim Coleman, the chairman of the National
Association of Tower Erectors (NATE), “I’m unaware of any
guidance by OSHA that allows for free climbing as an acceptable
method of accessing elevated work,”

Within a couple of days of the posting of the video, after a
number of calls and reports, the video which was posted on the
On Line Engineer’s web site, it was removed. Fortunately or
unfortunately, depending on your point-of-view, the nature of
the internet being what it is, the video keeps popping up,
primarily on you tube.

It is impossible to see how many people have seen it because it
keeps getting posted and then removed but one posting on Yahoo
registered 750,000 viewers while another on You Tube registered
100,000. It is probably safe to say that several million people
have viewed it by now.

While OSHA and NATE mandate 100% tie off, the video seems to
portray tower climbers as “a breed apart” with a daredevil
attitude.

With that attitude, however, they may soon become an extinct
breed.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
news:ZzX5CxGq...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

<snip>

> With that attitude, however, they may soon become an extinct
> breed.

I'd rather you became an extinct breed Bratt. I wouldn't do their job,
and no the regulations probably say they shouldn't do it that way.

You go and do it. Then tell them how to. Until then shut your yap.

I've probably done dangerous jobs that they wouldn't take on. They know
how to do theirs, I know how to do mine

Have you ever worked outside of an office? Have you ever worked? Do you
know which end of an SVD is the dangerous bit? Paperwork ceases to
exist in real life situations. Because you can die.

I've worked in circumstances where the paperwork safety bullshit made it
*MORE* fucking dangerous. Go try, then come back with the 'Holier Than
Thou' bullshit.

We need nutters like them, we don't need gutless penpushers like you.
Go jump in a river with weights on your feet.

Oh, I said that before didn't I? You didn't reply then and I doubt you
will now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUAEy7oI-Hg&feature=related

Real people do what is necessary without paging through the manual first
(except to check for how to evade tax (Not that I might check that
(much))).

Wake up and smell the flowers/get a life/ get a girlfriend(Or boyfriend
- I don't care) Just go and get pissed for all I care.

But stop telling those of us who work, or wish they could, for a living
how we're supposed to do it.

I'm now sure you are an Auditor

Kill the Auditor!

gary

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:33:10 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

>Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:BMGdnUjaOd1clSHS...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-05-22, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I still want this played at my funeral
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbAWqYp2pwg
>>>
>>> even if the album cover is in bad taste after 9/11..:-)
>>>
>>> gary
>>>
>>
>> Noted.
>>
>
>Hmmm, my (casette - remember them?) copy of the album is dated 1983, 20
>years before 9/11. Should we assume that Def Leppard cover art inspired
>the attack?

No, it was a band called Coup.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/info/popularculture.html

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the
rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.

-Texas Declaration of Independence

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05C1337C4124...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>news:ZzX5CxGq...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
><snip>
>> With that attitude, however, they may soon become an extinct
>> breed.
>
>I'd rather you became an extinct breed Bratt. I wouldn't do their job,
>and no the regulations probably say they shouldn't do it that way.

Stop misspelling my name and stop personally attacking me you obnoxious
pillock.

What have I ever done to you?

Also that wasn't actually me, it was the article I was quoting.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:33:10 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> My even older double casette "The Story Of The Clash" is in it's
> original case. I suppose someone could make a case for "Down in a
> Tubestation at Midnight" as an incentive for the 7/7 bombs but they can
> keep their hands off my copy.
>
> I like casettes and still have something that will play them.[1]
>
> gary
>
> [1]Easier to get Semtex than a wog box these days.

If that means "Compact cassette player",
I think there was one on offer in
the last Radio Times ( i.e. this week's
programmes) - with an FM radio so that
you can record programmes to listen later.
I don't think it was stereo, though.
Presumably that's coming.

Personally I think the buggers should
commit to DAB - and I think I may have
paid GBP200 for the last DAB radio with
timer recording that I bought, with
an ultra-modern USB 1.x socket and
SD-HC incompatibility.

They have better stuff sometimes for
Freeview, but it can still be tricky to
play back Freeview, and here in Scotland,
most of the Freeview radio is turned off
between around 5pm and midnight so that
they can put on television in Gaelic.

[Robert Carnegie]

> While OSHA and NATE mandate 100% tie off,
> the video seems to portray tower climbers
> as "a breed apart" with a daredevil attitude.
>
> With that attitude, however, they may soon
> become an extinct breed.

I don't think you can reasonably quote text
and then disclaim it unless you indicate
up-front that that's your intention.
And actually, wholesale text-grabbing of
an online article is not "fair use".
Hyperlink and some zingy line quotes is the
way. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
get a workforce to follow safety rules.
Horrible penalties have to be threatened
to those who don't wear the safety
equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
wash their hands.

At a recent hospital appointment, I noticed
a sign stating that they had scored 95%
for satisfactory hand hygiene, the day before.
I could have asked about that but I didn't.
I suppose that for instance if the test is
"Do you have something unpleasant that
shouldn't be there on your hands right now"
then the member of staff attending to me
would technically not qualify because she
was scrubbing something unpleasant off me
at that moment. Having said that, they wear
gloves - disposable, I think.

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

news:TIxLsgMx...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

> In message <XnsA05C1337C4124...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
> <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>>news:ZzX5CxGq...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>>
>><snip>
>>> With that attitude, however, they may soon become an extinct
>>> breed.
>>
>>I'd rather you became an extinct breed Bratt. I wouldn't do their
>>job, and no the regulations probably say they shouldn't do it that
>>way.
>
> Stop misspelling my name and stop personally attacking me you
> obnoxious pillock.

Spot the oxymoron there everyone? I do so enjoy winding up idiots,
wonder if they really do run on clockwork? Hmmm, investigation may be
required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRsjh58F1M

> What have I ever done to you?

Annoyed me with your pompous attitude. Bailiffs do that as well, they
also get short shrift because I know where the bodies are buried.

Some of them I put there..:-)

Basically you are irritating in your conviction that you, and only you,
understands the things of which you speak and that everyone else is a
simple minded idiot. In this ng we're not.

I'm probably not the only one of this opinion but I am the one who will
take you to task on it Bratt[1]. If only because it amuses me to do so.

Here we often argue about fairly irrelevant crap but for the most part
we do not claim to have the tablets from the mount, which appears to be
your attitude. And it's annoying, well annoying me anyway.

Is that clear enough or would you like me to do up a Powerpoint
presentation with the graphs and pie charts you're so fond of? Maybe
set up, against my natural instinct, a website that you can get lost in
for hours and *still not find the information you wanted*

That's what you penpushers like isn't it?

For everyone elses sake I'll stop winding up Bratt[1] now, apologies to
all.

gary

[1]Damn, keyboard seems to be stuck again..:-)

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@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.

--
"... when people pathologically hoard so much cash that they impoverish
the entire nation, we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and pretend
that they are role models." - B. Lester

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05C879DAA317...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN

<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>news:TIxLsgMx...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
>> In message <XnsA05C1337C4124...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
>> <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>>>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>>>news:ZzX5CxGq...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> With that attitude, however, they may soon become an extinct
>>>> breed.
>>>
>>>I'd rather you became an extinct breed Bratt. I wouldn't do their
>>>job, and no the regulations probably say they shouldn't do it that
>>>way.
>>
>> Stop misspelling my name and stop personally attacking me you
>> obnoxious pillock.
>
>Spot the oxymoron there everyone? I do so enjoy winding up idiots,
>wonder if they really do run on clockwork? Hmmm, investigation may be
>required.

The only moron is you. Note that I only responded as such after repeated
unprovoked personal attacks. You had just responded to a purely factual
response (I thought people might be interested to know that the
commentator was wrong about OHSA permitting free climbing) by attacking
me.

>
>> What have I ever done to you?

>Here we often argue about fairly irrelevant crap but for the most part
>we do not claim to have the tablets from the mount, which appears to be
>your attitude. And it's annoying, well annoying me anyway.

You are the one with the attitude problem, and you appear to have
hallucinated a version of me that has no resemblance to reality. You
seemed unable to distinguish between a statement of how things are
(which is what I made) and a statement of how I think things ought to
be.

You started it by responding to a perfectly simple microeconomic
argument based on marginal pricing with a mixture of insult, stupidity
and irrelevance [1]. Repeatedly cutting my argument, entirely failing to
address it, personally attacking me and giving the impression that you
had entirely failed to understand it. I'm more used to
rec.arts.sf.written where I would have been in more danger of being
corrected for oversimplifying, I left out the concept of backwards
sloping demand curves. [2]


[1] Whether I can personally do something has no direct bearing on
whether I can tell if it is being done well. If a business, for
example a farm, is losing money it isn't being run well. If a
pipe is leaking it is clear that the plumbing has been done
badly. Whether or not I could do a better job it is clear that
it isn't being done well enough.


[2] Two different types, Veblen goods (luxuries) and Giffen goods
(inferior substitutes).

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <A62dnfxGsueTQyHS...@wightman.ca>, Larry Moore
<sshirley...@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.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good>

The classic example given by Marshall is of inferior quality staple
foods, whose demand is driven by poverty that makes their purchasers
unable to afford superior foodstuffs. As the price of the cheap staple
rises, they can no longer afford to supplement their diet with better
foods, and must consume more of the staple food.

As Mr.Giffen has pointed out, a rise in the price of bread makes
so large a drain on the resources of the poorer labouring
families and raises so much the marginal utility of money to
them, that they are forced to curtail their consumption of meat
and the more expensive farinaceous foods: and, bread being still
the cheapest food which they can get and will take, they consume
more, and not less of it.
—Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (1895 ed.)[1]

[...]

Evidence for the existence of Giffen goods has generally been limited. A
2002 preliminary working paper by Robert Jensen and Nolan Miller of
Harvard University made the claim that rice and wheat/noodles are Giffen
goods in parts of China by tracking prices of goods. A further 2007
working paper by the same authors (now published in the September 2008
issue of American Economic Review) experimentally demonstrated the
existence of Giffen goods among humans at the household level by
directly subsidizing purchases of rice and wheat flour for extremely
poor families. It is easier to find Giffen effects where the number of
goods available is limited, as in an experimental economy: DeGrandpre et
al. (1993) provide such an experimental demonstration. In 1991,
Battalio, Kagel, and Kogut proved that quinine water is a Giffen good
for some lab rats. However, they were only able to show the existence of
a Giffen good at an individual level and not the market level.

Jensen and Millar's paper is here:

<http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=482>

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

news:ZrU50tWn...@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?

gary

[Lizzy Taylor]

On 23/05/2012 15:09, GaryN wrote:
> Brett Dunbar<br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
> news:ZrU50tWn...@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?

Why waste time on diagrams?

Lizzy

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:

$b8w4vXE...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

> In message <A62dnfxGsueTQyHS...@wightman.ca>, Larry Moore
> <sshirley...@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.

But he won't. He'll just revert to the "I know what it is and you're
too thick to understand" shite.

Should run for Mayor of London when Boris gets to be PM.

I think we should feel sorry for him, clearly has no human contact, no
girlfriend/boyfriend and probably only recognises pubs from outside.
Wouldn't know a rugby game if it stood on his foot. Waste of oxygen and
protein.

gary

[1]Naturally merely knowing how to make things is inferior to selling
them.

[GaryN]

Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in
news:4fbcf05b$0$7318$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:

Have I told you lately that I love you Lizzy?

[Lizzy Taylor]

On 23/05/2012 15:26, GaryN wrote:
> Lizzy Taylor<li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in
> news:4fbcf05b$0$7318$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>> On 23/05/2012 15:09, GaryN wrote:
>>> Brett Dunbar<br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>>> news:ZrU50tWn...@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?
>>
>> Why waste time on diagrams?
>>
>> Lizzy
>>
>>
>
> Have I told you lately that I love you Lizzy?

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

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:
> $b8w4vXE...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
>> In message <A62dnfxGsueTQyHS...@wightman.ca>, Larry Moore
>> <sshirley...@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.
>

Oh Dear. I thought he had gone.

>
> Wouldn't know a rugby game if it stood on his foot. Waste of oxygen and
> protein.
>

Perhaps, but as neither is in short supply, it's no skin off my nose.



--

[GaryN]

Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in news:4fbcf8c2$0$12270
$5b6a...@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!

[Nigel Stapley]

Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@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?

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in news:4fbcf8c2$0$12270
> $5b6a...@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

[Bernard Peek]

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.

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.




--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Robert Carnegie]

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:ZrU50tWn...@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?
>
> Why waste time on diagrams?

This seems to be getting pretty unparliamentary.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@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.

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05C9CD9D5EC2...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:
>$b8w4vXE...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
>> In message <A62dnfxGsueTQyHS...@wightman.ca>, Larry Moore
>> <sshirley...@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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics>

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.

Wrong. I'm just giving you some credit for understanding of some of the
basic terminology. Possibly undeserved.

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6a...@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.

[Bernard Peek]

On 23/05/12 17:15, Brett Dunbar wrote:
> In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6a...@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.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <4fbd10a1$0$12275$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Bernard Peek

<b...@shrdlu.com> writes
>On 23/05/12 17:15, Brett Dunbar wrote:
>> In message <4fbd052c$0$10725$5b6a...@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.

[Nigel Stapley]

Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@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.
>
>

Good enough for me:

http://www.judgemental.plus.com/

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? :-)

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:jo6dnZZwWNFcvyDS...@brightview.co.uk:

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnuPeXrwFEU&NR=1&feature=fvwp

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

[Harry Vaderchi]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:47:59 +0100, Nigel Stapley

<un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:

> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN <webm...@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.
>>
>
> Good enough for me:
>
> http://www.judgemental.plus.com/
>
> 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.

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Albi CNU

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

news:KpvdEDiK...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

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.

[GaryN]

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

[Bernard Peek]

On 23/05/12 19:49, GaryN wrote:

>> 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.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05CC4DA8F803...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@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.

[Nigel Stapley]

Harry Vaderchi wrote:

>
> 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.

[Nigel Stapley]

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!

;-)

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05CC8BF21F96...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
>news:KpvdEDiK...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
>>

>> 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].

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.

[Lizzy Taylor]

On 23/05/12 16:26, GaryN wrote:
> 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)

[Robert Carnegie]

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.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>
> Good enough for me:
>
> http://www.judgemental.plus.com/
>
> 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? :-)
>

Immortality of a kind. Thanks.

--
He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the
laws of nature. -George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra

[GaryN]

"Harry Vaderchi" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:op.werxegtk1r0rdn@dell3100:

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.

[GaryN]

Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in

news:4fbd506d$0$7311$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:

<snip>

> 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!

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in news:4ea06574-fefb-487b-
8135-b23...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> But ISTR you yourself at different times have
> had to be rescued, hospitalised, arrested...
> possibly rusticated but I'm not sure about
> that one.

I only get hospitalised when I break something or have a fit.

I usually get arrested when I'm doing something completey innocuous[1] and
harmless.

"What are you doing at this bus stop?"

"Waiting for a bus you fucking idiot, what else would I be doing?"

"You're nicked"

gary

[1]See, I can spill priperly

[GaryN]

Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in

news:4fbd38cb$0$12276$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:

<snip>

> 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.
>
>
>

I have, in fact, been reading his missives. Just seems that he has no
desire to regard what anyone else thinks, which is what annoys me.

Argument is usual here but pomposity of the 'Sir Humphrey' type I find
irritating. Sorry, can't become someone different.

What was that lovely phrase in 'Yes, Prime Minister'

"I think you'll find that it's the Political will meeting the
Administrative won't"

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-23-12 12:21 PM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 23/05/12 19:49, GaryN wrote:
>
>>> 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.

But along with all the personal attacks on Brett, which I really don't
like, there are some perfectly rational and polite arguments opposing
his equally rational and polite (but wrong) arguments.

>
> 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.
>

No. Most of the world's problems are caused by a breakdown in empathy.
"Evil begins when people start to treat other people as things", to
quote Granny [1]. This includes governments and employers who see their
people as interchangeable and disposable. Also individuals, departments,
governments and employers who are more concerned with The Rules than
with administering a fair and caring society that looks out for everyone
in it.

Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason why
the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well and
don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to understand.

[1] See, Harry? We do reference the canon sometimes.

Lesley.

--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca

[Lesley Weston]

You haven't found alt.books.pratchett? It's a good idea to subscribe to
both abp and afp; that way you get the books on one and stuff about the
books and everything else that might be meaningful, interesting and/or
entertaining on the other.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 1:57 AM, GaryN wrote:
> "Harry Vaderchi"<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:op.werxegtk1r0rdn@dell3100:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:47:59 +0100, Nigel Stapley
>> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-23, Nigel Stapley<un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-05-23, GaryN<webm...@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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good enough for me:
>>>
>>> http://www.judgemental.plus.com/
>>>

>>> 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.

And a cat, which qualifies us for Facebook. Though she doesn't do cute
and she talks proper Cat, not a hideous babytalk version of English.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-23-12 4:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

<snip>

> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
> to those who don't wear the safety
> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
> wash their hands.

Even more horrible than concussion, blindness or ebola?

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one
>reason why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave
>well and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid
>to understand.

Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.
Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
is in their own interests and acting accordingly.

[Alec Cawley]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> But along with all the personal attacks on Brett, which I really don't
> like, there are some perfectly rational and polite arguments opposing his
> equally rational and polite (but wrong) arguments.

> No. Most of the world's problems are caused by a breakdown in empathy.
> "Evil begins when people start to treat other people as things", to quote
> Granny [1]. This includes governments and employers who see their people
> as interchangeable and disposable. Also individuals, departments,
> governments and employers who are more concerned with The Rules than with
> administering a fair and caring society that looks out for everyone in it.
>
> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason why
> the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well and
> don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to understand.
>

Once upon a time, all economists believed in Homo Economicus, the Rational
Man, who made all his decisions with the aid of a slide rule (it was that
long ago) and the best information that careful attention could buy. They
believed that, with their careful training, everybody could approximate to
Homo Economicus, and all would be sweetens and carefully allocated light.

About forty years ago, a radical minority realised Homo Economicus did not,
and never would, exist. People have much too much going on in their lives
waste time being rational with slide rules, and prefer to short circuit
decisions by stuck short cuts as following the crowd (FSVO crowd), doing
what they alway have done, following bad advice, and pure chance. This was,
of course, initially denounced as heresy, buy as the older generation died
off. It became mainstream. While not universally believed, I think it is
now the general consensus of economists. The public, however, is
understandably slow to react (for the same reasons) and still sees the old
model of economists.

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

news:KItNsj0D...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

> In message <jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one
>>reason why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they
>>behave well and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too
>>stupid to understand.
>
> Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
> other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.

Sorry to point out a flaw in that statement but isn't that exactly what
economists do?

Maybe I'm so thick that I've misunderstood all the economists I've heard
over the years. Bloody stupid biker engineer failing to understand the
highlands of financial theory.

> Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
> is in their own interests and acting accordingly.

Children are often quite astute with their money[1].

Economists, who are supposed to be, sell our gold reserves, use our
money to bail out banks that screwed up due to other economists cocking
it up and then say it's all our fault for not working hard
enough/spending enough.

They always come out with the same bullshit - "You don't understand
economics". Yes I do you pompous, anonymous, twat (Not Bratt, let off
on this one). The problem is that *you* don't. If you did the banks
wouldn't be going bust.

The man in the street probably has a better grasp of economics than some
idiot with a degree.

And I still haven't seen a reply from Bratt about wether he has a
partner. Normal people would have been indignantly saying "Of course I
have" (sorry, can't resist pushing this one, I don't really think he's
gay and frankly I don't care, but if you find a needlepoint in someone
who annoys you...)

What is he hiding? ITWSBT

If any of the usual crew tell me to stop I will.

gary

[1]Hey, I saved earnt money (from hard work) to the sum of just over
£100 to buy my first air rifle and scope back in the '80s when that was
a lot of money[2].

[2]Was for a 12 year old.[3]

[3]Yes it's technically illegal for a 12 year old to own an air rifle
but we do things differently in the country. Bloody good rifle though,
Webley Vulcan Mk2 in .22 caliber with a Tasco 4x40 scope.

[Bernard Peek]

On 24/05/12 16:05, Lesley Weston wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
> No. Most of the world's problems are caused by a breakdown in empathy.

Yes, but not in the way you suggest. When we put our money into a bank
account we don't consider how that money is then invested to pay
interest or pay for banking services we receive. It's likely to be
invested in a company whose directors are forced to take decisions that
we would disagree with. We don't have sufficient empathy with either the
directors or the people affected by their decisions. It's abdication of
responsibility.

> "Evil begins when people start to treat other people as things", to
> quote Granny [1]. This includes governments and employers who see their
> people as interchangeable and disposable. Also individuals, departments,
> governments and employers who are more concerned with The Rules than
> with administering a fair and caring society that looks out for everyone
> in it.
>
> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason why
> the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well and
> don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to understand.

It's shooting the messenger because they tell us stuff that we don't
want to be true.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Bernard Peek]

On 24/05/12 16:51, Brett Dunbar wrote:
> In message <jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason
>> why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well
>> and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to
>> understand.
>
> Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
> other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.
> Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
> is in their own interests and acting accordingly.

Yes. This is one of its best-known failings. Another is that models
don't necessarily cope well with people who do know what is in their own
interests, and also understand the economic models others are using.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Alec Cawley]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> While OSHA and NATE mandate 100% tie off,
>> the video seems to portray tower climbers
>> as "a breed apart" with a daredevil attitude.
>>
>> With that attitude, however, they may soon
>> become an extinct breed.
>
> I don't think you can reasonably quote text
> and then disclaim it unless you indicate
> up-front that that's your intention.
> And actually, wholesale text-grabbing of
> an online article is not "fair use".
> Hyperlink and some zingy line quotes is the
> way. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

>
> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
> to those who don't wear the safety
> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
> wash their hands.
>

> At a recent hospital appointment, I noticed
> a sign stating that they had scored 95%
> for satisfactory hand hygiene, the day before.
> I could have asked about that but I didn't.
> I suppose that for instance if the test is
> "Do you have something unpleasant that
> shouldn't be there on your hands right now"
> then the member of staff attending to me
> would technically not qualify because she
> was scrubbing something unpleasant off me
> at that moment. Having said that, they wear
> gloves - disposable, I think.

I think the criterion is not that you don't get dirty, but that you wash
your hands after every patient before touching another - without exception.
The problem is that apparently healthy person A may be carrying a culture
of a bacterium to which they have complete immunity, but which will make
person B seriously, possibly fatally, ill. We are each potential plague
carriers for each other, without exception. And the personal attentions a
nurse may offer make the possibility of cross contamination much easier. So
wash hands between patients, even if they appear 100% healthy.

ISTR a report said that it was found that one of the worst sources of
contamination was doctor's ties, which they wore to prove that they were
the officers and gentlemen in the medical army. They did not like to be
told to keep the out of the wards.

[Bernard Peek]

On 24/05/12 19:24, GaryN wrote:
> Brett Dunbar<br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
> news:KItNsj0D...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
>> In message<jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one
>>> reason why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they
>>> behave well and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too
>>> stupid to understand.
>>
>> Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
>> other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.
>
> Sorry to point out a flaw in that statement but isn't that exactly what
> economists do?

Economists tend to tell people when their actions are going to have
harmful effects. That doesn't necessarily stop the decision-makers if
they think it will be the least-worst result or will have some
overwhelming advantage - like winning the next election.

>
> Maybe I'm so thick that I've misunderstood all the economists I've heard
> over the years. Bloody stupid biker engineer failing to understand the
> highlands of financial theory.
>
>> Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
>> is in their own interests and acting accordingly.
>
>
> Children are often quite astute with their money[1].
>
> Economists, who are supposed to be, sell our gold reserves, use our
> money to bail out banks that screwed up due to other economists cocking
> it up and then say it's all our fault for not working hard
> enough/spending enough.
>
> They always come out with the same bullshit - "You don't understand
> economics". Yes I do you pompous, anonymous, twat (Not Bratt, let off
> on this one). The problem is that *you* don't. If you did the banks
> wouldn't be going bust.
>
> The man in the street probably has a better grasp of economics than some
> idiot with a degree.
>
> And I still haven't seen a reply from Bratt about wether he has a
> partner. Normal people would have been indignantly saying "Of course I
> have" (sorry, can't resist pushing this one, I don't really think he's
> gay and frankly I don't care, but if you find a needlepoint in someone
> who annoys you...)
>
> What is he hiding? ITWSBT
>
> If any of the usual crew tell me to stop I will.

I think you've said enough.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Alec Cawley]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
> news:KItNsj0D...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

> Sorry to point out a flaw in that statement but isn't that exactly what
> economists do?
>
> Maybe I'm so thick that I've misunderstood all the economists I've heard
> over the years. Bloody stupid biker engineer failing to understand the
> highlands of financial theory.

> Children are often quite astute with their money[1].
>
> Economists, who are supposed to be, sell our gold reserves, use our
> money to bail out banks that screwed up due to other economists cocking
> it up and then say it's all our fault for not working hard
> enough/spending enough.

Selling the Gold was Gordon Brown, who was not an economist. The economists
questioned it at the time, but New Labour knew what it was doing.

The same, perhaps less so, applies to the bankers. They lobbied the
governments to slacken the rules, and then used them to run a casino. I
challenge you to find many economists, as opposed to "quants"
(mathematicians) who were gung no for what they did. While not saying
economists had the answers, quite a number of them were shouting warnings
well before 2008.

>
> They always come out with the same bullshit - "You don't understand
> economics". Yes I do you pompous, anonymous, twat (Not Bratt, let off
> on this one). The problem is that *you* don't. If you did the banks
> wouldn't be going bust.

I think you are muddling economists and bankers, between whom the overlap
is small.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jpliuu
$204q$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 05-23-12 4:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
>> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
>> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
>> to those who don't wear the safety
>> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
>> wash their hands.
>
> Even more horrible than concussion, blindness or ebola?
>
> Lesley.
>

As I've mentioned before Lesley a great many safety procedures are
*MORE* sodding dangerous than ignoring them. I'm minded of a phrase
from Sven Hassel in 'Monte Cassino'

"Steel helmets were practical things, capable of being used for lots of
purposes. The only thing they were useless for, was the purpose for
which they were made"

Bit like accountants.

Hassel was wounded 8 times during WW2 in Russia, Italy and France, so I
think it's fair to assume that he knows whereof he speaks.[1]

gary

[1]Like my grandfather; he managed to walk through WW2 without dying.
Guess who was in command of the prison camp where Hassel wrote "Legion
of the Damned". Guess who has the original handwritten copy..:-)

[GaryN]

Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in news:4fbe8060$0$10733$5b6aafb4
@news.zen.co.uk:

<snip>

> I think you've said enough.

Agreed, no further replies to Bratt.

Thanks. Think these detox drugs are screwing my head up more than alcohol
could manage.

Actually that's not strictly true, I'm just saying things that I usually
wouldn't. But reasonably politely..:-)

I still want to know if he has an SO of any species or if he really is A.
E. Pessimal?

gary

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jplhcd
$1ut1$1...@mud.stack.nl:

Don't know which cat we have now The Suzicat is gone. Maybe if we asked
nicely we could borrow Rhiow from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Night_with_Moon_%28novel%29

She might be agreeable. Probably find us amusing!

[Nigel Stapley]

It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim that
one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology (1).

I can't 'do' carpentry. I long ago reached an understanding with wood;
if I agreed not to hit it with anything, it would agree not to split.
Nonetheless, I can look at a table and tell whether or not it is a
'good' table. I can see that - if one leg is 5cm shorter than all the
others - it is *not* a good table (2).

Similarly, I can gauge someone's point of view with regard to religion -
I can easily see when it is wonky.

As above, so below. If some smart-arse who thinks that he's clever
because he has a piece of paper or parchment telling him so (3) tells me
that such-and-such a theory is the only valid one for producing a
successful society (even though the evidence of ruin as a result of
imposing that theory on real people in real situations may lie scattered
around him), then I know that he is on merely waving terms with The
World As We Know It. Economic theory, therefore, is merely theology with
numbers (4).

(1) Possibly the most useless academic 'discipline' ever created, which
is why I don't capitalise it.
(2) Unless you have a building with serious subsidence issues, of course.
(3) Can't imagine who I'm thinking of here, chums. Not that it matters;
I've killfiled the twerp.
(4) As opposed to Economics as a factual study of what *has* happened;
in other words, as a sub-branch of history.

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05DC8EC54B64...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jpliuu
>$204q$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 05-23-12 4:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
>>> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
>>> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
>>> to those who don't wear the safety
>>> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
>>> wash their hands.
>>
>> Even more horrible than concussion, blindness or ebola?
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
>As I've mentioned before Lesley a great many safety procedures are
>*MORE* sodding dangerous than ignoring them. I'm minded of a phrase
>from Sven Hassel in 'Monte Cassino'
>
>"Steel helmets were practical things, capable of being used for lots of
>purposes. The only thing they were useless for, was the purpose for
>which they were made"
>
>Bit like accountants.
>
>Hassel was wounded 8 times during WW2 in Russia, Italy and France, so I
>think it's fair to assume that he knows whereof he speaks.[1]

That turns out to be incorrect. At the start of the first world war none
of the combatants issued helmets to their soldiers. They introduced
helmets, at considerable expense, as that significantly reduced head
injuries. A helmet was of limited value against a direct hit from a
bullet but was of considerable use against shrapnel and shell fragments,
which were major causes of death. For the purpose they were designed
they were quite effective which is why they remained in use.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet>

The original design (Type A) was made of mild steel with a brim
1.5–2 inches wide. The Type A was in production for just a few
weeks before the specification was changed and the Type B was
introduced in October 1915. The specification was altered at the
suggestion of Sir Robert Hadfield to a harder steel with 12%
manganese content which became known as "Hadfield's steel",
which was virtually impervious to shrapnel balls provided they
impacted from above. Ballisticaly this increased protection for
the wearer by 10 percent, and could withstand a .45 calibre
pistol bullet travelling at 600 feet per second fired at a
distance of 10 feet. It also had a narrower brim and a more
domed crown.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:57:50 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> "Harry Vaderchi" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:op.werxegtk1r0rdn@dell3100:
>

> > 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.

There are books?

... I think Brett mentioned _Making Money_...

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in news:94qdnT_
6zvuqESPSnZ2...@brightview.co.uk:

> GaryN wrote:
<snip>

>> They always come out with the same bullshit - "You don't understand
>> economics". Yes I do you pompous, anonymous, twat (Not Bratt, let off
>> on this one). The problem is that *you* don't. If you did the banks
>> wouldn't be going bust.
>>
>
> It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim that
> one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology (1).

Ah, but remember you have to have studied the *right* theology! Or is that
Keynesian Economists v All the others.

Meh, fuck it, pass the whisky. I'm paying for the next round before the
economists lose all my money!

<snip>

gary

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:eWiobE
$+JpvP...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

<snip>

>>As I've mentioned before Lesley a great many safety procedures are
>>*MORE* sodding dangerous than ignoring them. I'm minded of a phrase
>>from Sven Hassel in 'Monte Cassino'
>>
>>"Steel helmets were practical things, capable of being used for lots of
>>purposes. The only thing they were useless for, was the purpose for
>>which they were made"
>>
>>Bit like accountants.
>>
>>Hassel was wounded 8 times during WW2 in Russia, Italy and France, so I
>>think it's fair to assume that he knows whereof he speaks.[1]
>
>
> That turns out to be incorrect.

Eh? I'm pretty sure that if he was wounded 8 times he'd have noticed.
It's the red stuff falling out that gives it away. Are you suggesting that
he wandered around Europe and Asia getting shot and didn't notice?

> At the start of the first world war none
> of the combatants issued helmets to their soldiers. They introduced
> helmets, at considerable expense,

Spot the fucking economist. Any of our lady contributors fancy a date with
this charmer? My missus took my suggestion that we should invite him for
an evening out with the response "I'd rather beat myself to death,
preferably with his leg after I've finished with him"

> as that significantly reduced head
> injuries. A helmet was of limited value against a direct hit from a
> bullet but was of considerable use against shrapnel and shell fragments,
> which were major causes of death. For the purpose they were designed
> they were quite effective which is why they remained in use.
>
> From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet>
>
> The original design (Type A) was made of mild steel with a brim
> 1.5–2 inches wide. The Type A was in production for just a few
> weeks before the specification was changed and the Type B was
> introduced in October 1915. The specification was altered at the
> suggestion of Sir Robert Hadfield to a harder steel with 12%
> manganese content which became known as "Hadfield's steel",
> which was virtually impervious to shrapnel balls provided they
> impacted from above. Ballisticaly this increased protection for
> the wearer by 10 percent, and could withstand a .45 calibre
> pistol bullet travelling at 600 feet per second fired at a
> distance of 10 feet. It also had a narrower brim and a more
> domed crown.

Oh FFS this guy *is* Sir Humphrey! Did I not state clearly WW2?

Bratt, Sven Hassel was a Danish national conscripted into the German army.
Wrote about his experiences.

You are a prat who doesn't even bother to look up literary links, instead
looking up obscure regulations from 100 years ago.

So, a bureaucrat or economist.

Actually I do keep asking and you keep failing to respond. Perhaps all of
us here should assume that you are just some twerp economics student?[1]

Apologies to everyone (except Bratt) because I promised not to have another
go at him.

I lied.

Surprising how often that works if you do it right.

gary

[1]With acne and no girlfriend.

[steveski]

He's a card, isn't he? :-)

--
Steveski

[Lizzy Taylor]

If there are sufficient potato peelings, chips & broccoli stems I'm sure
my Rocky-cat will join us. A left over piece of cucumber or courgette
is also considered to be a delicacy. Carrots are quite unacceptable
however.

Lizzy

[GaryN]

steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote in news:a27pamFfiuU1
@mid.individual.net:

<snip>

> He's a card, isn't he? :-)

Yeah, the one that Cripples Mr Onion..

gary

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05DE95646B2B...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in news:eWiobE
>$+JpvP...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
><snip>
>>>As I've mentioned before Lesley a great many safety procedures are
>>>*MORE* sodding dangerous than ignoring them. I'm minded of a phrase
>>>from Sven Hassel in 'Monte Cassino'
>>>
>>>"Steel helmets were practical things, capable of being used for lots of
>>>purposes. The only thing they were useless for, was the purpose for
>>>which they were made"
>>>
>>>Bit like accountants.
>>>
>>>Hassel was wounded 8 times during WW2 in Russia, Italy and France, so I
>>>think it's fair to assume that he knows whereof he speaks.[1]
>>
>>
>> That turns out to be incorrect.
>
>Eh? I'm pretty sure that if he was wounded 8 times he'd have noticed.
>It's the red stuff falling out that gives it away. Are you suggesting that
>he wandered around Europe and Asia getting shot and didn't notice?

No, merely that he wrong about helmets being ineffective. Statistical
evidence trumps anecdotes. They substantially reduced the risk of death
from shrapnel and shell splinters. As they were leading causes of
battlefield fatalities the helmets were effective. That is why, although
all armies started the first world war without helmets, they all adopted
them during 1915-16. It is also why they have always subsequently opted
to retain them. The Brodie helmet was the main one used by the British
army from 1915 to 1944. The US army also used it until 1942. The MK II
Brodie was replaced by the Mk III helmet, sometimes called the Turtle
which was deeper, with a smaller brim and offered 38% more protection
than the Mk II.

[Harry Vaderchi]

I have; it's quite quiet there.

> Lesley.
>


--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Albi CNU

[Harry Vaderchi]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:16 +0100, Nigel Stapley
<un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:

>
> It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim that
> one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology (1).

>

> (1) Possibly the most useless academic 'discipline' ever created, which
> is why I don't capitalise it.

You can combine logic and religion? is that like having tea and no tea at
the same time?
(ah wrong froup)

[GaryN]

Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote in
news:4fbeb117$0$12260$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:

I strongly suspect that we have at least as many cats as people, except
for Bratt[1] who is almost certainly not a cat person.

gary

[1]Keyboard is still stuck.

[GaryN]

"Harry Vaderchi" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in

news:op.weuqpbnx1r0rdn@dell3100:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:16 +0100, Nigel Stapley
> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim
>> that one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology
>> (1).
>
>>
>> (1) Possibly the most useless academic 'discipline' ever created,
>> which is why I don't capitalise it.
>
> You can combine logic and religion? is that like having tea and no tea
> at the same time?
> (ah wrong froup)

No Harry, exactly the right group to ask such a question. A long rambling
discussion will probably ensue, beer and cheese and chocolate will almost
certainly be mentioned..:-)

gary

[GaryN]

Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

news:98eARbBM...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

Actually the troops hated them because, like motorcycle brain buckets,
they restrict vision and hearing so you are more likely to get hit. In
addition an impact will pull your head backwards on the chinstrap with
unpleasant results.

Shrapnel and shell splinters are more likely to hit at gut/chest level.
Anyone with military training will be aiming for a CBM shot with a
rifle, only Hollywood snipers go for headshots.

My grandfathers opinion was "They're a bloody nuisance and I never wore
one". Since he fought throughout WW2 and died in his sleep after
driving to the library some 50 years later I think his opinion has some
heft behind it. No doubt you will disagree, after all, actual
experiences of people who were there mean nothing in the light of the
mighty statistics..

But you can use them for cooking.

Your precious statistics do not seem to record how many people were
saved by their helmets as opposed to how many were killed by them.

Why don't you research that for your Thesis?

gary

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, May 25, 2012 9:48:16 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Brett Dunbar

> wrote in
> news:98eARbBM...@dimetrodon.me.uk:
>
> > In message <XnsA05DE95646B2B...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
> > <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
> >>Brett Dunbar

Not as unpleasant as the equivalent blow direct to the skull.

Are we talking about the flying saucer
ones, or some other kind?

> Shrapnel and shell splinters are more likely to hit at gut/chest level.

So you need a helmet that comes down
to the waist.

Evidently Sven Hassel was not wounded in
the helmet, at least not fatally at the
time, so his knowledge isn't firsthand.

> Anyone with military training will be aiming for a CBM shot with a
> rifle, only Hollywood snipers go for headshots.

So it isn't relevant whether your head
is bulletproof or not. Unless they miss
and hit you in the head.

> My grandfathers opinion was "They're a bloody nuisance and I never wore
> one". Since he fought throughout WW2 and died in his sleep after
> driving to the library some 50 years later I think his opinion has some
> heft behind it. No doubt you will disagree, after all, actual
> experiences of people who were there mean nothing in the light of the
> mighty statistics..
>
> But you can use them for cooking.
>
> Your precious statistics do not seem to record how many people were
> saved by their helmets as opposed to how many were killed by them.
>
> Why don't you research that for your Thesis?

I assume that you issue helmets to some
soldiers and not to others (e.g.: the enemy),
and afterwards, count how many are still
alive.

I wear a helmet for cycling and I haven't
become a statistic, because whenever I've
been knocked off my bike or fallen off,
I haven't been seriously injured or
hospitalised, although I took the knee
out of a pair of trousers. But without
a helmet I could have died several times,
possibly - or been blinded when tarmac
meets spectacles meets eyes. But this
is imaginary data.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:90f63fc8-a67c-4ac6...@googlegroups.com:

More so if you happen to have one of the lids which reaches down to the
nape of your neck. I leave the results to the readers imagination.

> Are we talking about the flying saucer
> ones, or some other kind?

The more encompassing German and US ones used in WW2.

>> Shrapnel and shell splinters are more likely to hit at gut/chest
>> level.
>
> So you need a helmet that comes down
> to the waist.

Kevlar body armour, but there is a pistol that fires a round that will
go through 2 layers at 50 yards and one layer at 100 yards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven

Nice handling weapon with nasty results, and yes, I have fired one on a
range.

> Evidently Sven Hassel was not wounded in
> the helmet, at least not fatally at the
> time, so his knowledge isn't firsthand.

About as first hand as you can get. He was there, I wasn't.

>> Anyone with military training will be aiming for a CBM shot with a
>> rifle, only Hollywood snipers go for headshots.
>
> So it isn't relevant whether your head
> is bulletproof or not. Unless they miss
> and hit you in the head.

The tin hats aren't bulletproof. They're designed to protect from
*falling* objects. You can't dig a ditch in Kent without finding cannon
shells and spent bullets from the Battle of Britain. If one of them
drops on your noggin from 10k feet you're going to know about it.
Briefly.


<snip>

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 11:50:16 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Got sent this from a fellow ex-glider pilot. Scared both of us just
> watching it.

Also consider (if it isn't the same one):

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/worker_deaths/>

"The investigation was carried out by
ProPublica and US TV show Frontline,
which have spent the last couple of years
disentangling the chains of subcontracting subcontractors to pin every cell tower
death on a specific network operator.
The investigation alleged that AT&T's drive
to deploy 3G and integrating the recently
acquired Cingular's infrastructure cost
the lives of 15 climbers since 2003."
You see, "Contractors are routinely required
to break safety regulations in order to
meet unrealistic deadlines." I suppose
"required by a bonus and penalty structure",
or, to put it another way, getting paid,
but I don't want to watch or think about
this one, either.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in

news:f1593790-0125-4108...@googlegroups.com:

The problem that corps run into is that some of us silly grunts actually
doing the job will do illegal things *Without the company knowing
(officially)*. We know we're safe but some keyboard monkey somewhere
else decides that we have to take unnecessary precautions.

We don't in all honesty, give a shit about the company or the
regulations. We care about getting our job done.

The stupid bastard deskwarmers don't know how to do the job we do so we
ignore them.

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05E63B889EC6...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Shrapnel and shell splinters are more likely to hit at gut/chest level.
>Anyone with military training will be aiming for a CBM shot with a
>rifle, only Hollywood snipers go for headshots.

If you are dug in, in a trench or foxhole, your head is more exposed
while the ground protects the rest of your body. In any event in both
world wars most of the casualties were inflicted by artillery (mostly
HESH (High Explosive SHrapnel) shells) not small arms. The Army's
statisticians analysed the data comparisons between casualty and
fatality rates of units that wore helmets and those that did not and
found a significant benefit from helmets. Leading to the diversion of a
substantial amount of steel and manufacturing capacity into helmets. The
reduction in fatalities was enormous. The Germans reduced fatalities for
heads wounds by 70% when the Stalhelm replaced the leather Pickelhaube
from 1916. The current military helmet uses a similar shape to the
Stalhelm.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickelhaube>

Beginning in 1916, the Pickelhaube was slowly replaced by a new
German steel helmet (the Stahlhelm) intended to offer greater
head protection from shell fragments. The German steel helmet
decreased German head wound fatalities by 70%.

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <XnsA05E985146FEB...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes

>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>news:f1593790-0125-4108...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, May 21, 2012 11:50:16 AM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
>>> Got sent this from a fellow ex-glider pilot. Scared both of us just
>>> watching it.
>>
>> Also consider (if it isn't the same one):
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/worker_deaths/>
>>
>> "The investigation was carried out by
>> ProPublica and US TV show Frontline,
>> which have spent the last couple of years
>> disentangling the chains of subcontracting subcontractors to pin every
>> cell tower death on a specific network operator.
>> The investigation alleged that AT&T's drive
>> to deploy 3G and integrating the recently
>> acquired Cingular's infrastructure cost
>> the lives of 15 climbers since 2003."
>> You see, "Contractors are routinely required
>> to break safety regulations in order to
>> meet unrealistic deadlines." I suppose
>> "required by a bonus and penalty structure",
>> or, to put it another way, getting paid,
>> but I don't want to watch or think about
>> this one, either.
>>

If you set a performance target that cannot reasonably be achieved
without breaching regulations then you have committed an offence.

>
>The problem that corps run into is that some of us silly grunts actually
>doing the job will do illegal things *Without the company knowing
>(officially)*. We know we're safe but some keyboard monkey somewhere
>else decides that we have to take unnecessary precautions.
>
>We don't in all honesty, give a shit about the company or the
>regulations. We care about getting our job done.

They care about getting the job done as well. They also care about you
not getting splattered over the scenery and not getting prosecuted and
not finding their insurance invalidated.

If you fail to follow safety regulations they are liable for prosecution
and the insurance is probably invalidated if your remains need to be
scrapped off the tarmac. So if you take that attitude, refusing to use
the equipment as ordered following the risk assessment, you should be
fired as the employer really doesn't need that kind of hassle.

>
>The stupid bastard deskwarmers don't know how to do the job we do so we
>ignore them.

They probably know how to do the job, being a mast monkey isn't
especially complex, They may lack the skills or fitness to actually do
it in practice but do know what it entails.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-25, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> "Harry Vaderchi" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:op.weuqpbnx1r0rdn@dell3100:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:16 +0100, Nigel Stapley
>> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim
>>> that one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology
>>> (1).
>>
>>>
>>> (1) Possibly the most useless academic 'discipline' ever created,
>>> which is why I don't capitalise it.
>>
>> You can combine logic and religion? is that like having tea and no tea
>> at the same time?
>> (ah wrong froup)
>
> No Harry, exactly the right group to ask such a question. A long rambling
> discussion will probably ensue, beer and cheese and chocolate will almost
> certainly be mentioned..:-)
>
> gary
>

M'Lady quoted, from 1922, what I put in the sig. You might not be able to
combine them, but religion is trumped by science. Surely?

--
If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of
science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of
knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:33 PM, Harry Vaderchi wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:38:06 +0100, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05-23-12 11:24 AM, Harry Vaderchi wrote:

<snip>

>>> 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 haven't found alt.books.pratchett? It's a good idea to subscribe
>> to both abp and afp; that way you get the books on one and stuff about
>> the books and everything else that might be meaningful, interesting
>> and/or entertaining on the other.
>>
> I have; it's quite quiet there.

That's a definite clue.

Lesley.

--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 12:12 PM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jplhcd
> $1ut1$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 05-24-12 1:57 AM, GaryN wrote:
>>> "Harry Vaderchi"<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in

<snip>

>>>> 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.
>>
>> And a cat, which qualifies us for Facebook. Though she doesn't do cute
>> and she talks proper Cat, not a hideous babytalk version of English.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> Don't know which cat we have now The Suzicat is gone.

There's quite a choice, most of us seem to have cats. But the afp cat
can face down an alligator, so she's something special.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 8:51 AM, Brett Dunbar wrote:
> In message <jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason
>> why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well
>> and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to
>> understand.
>
> Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
> other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.

> Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
> is in their own interests and acting accordingly.

Indeed we are. Which is why we formed unions, and why the governments in
most democratic countries are considerably further to the left than they
used to be, even when there's a supposedly right-wing party in power as
there is now in Canada.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:24 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Brett Dunbar<br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in

> news:KItNsj0D...@dimetrodon.me.uk:

>
>> In message<jpliok$2034$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one
>>> reason why the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they
>>> behave well and don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too
>>> stupid to understand.
>>
>> Economists tend to be fairly hostile to paternalism. That is treating
>> other people like children who are unable to decide for themselves.
>

> Sorry to point out a flaw in that statement but isn't that exactly what
> economists do?
>
> Maybe I'm so thick that I've misunderstood all the economists I've heard
> over the years. Bloody stupid biker engineer failing to understand the
> highlands of financial theory.
>

>> Preferring to assume that people are perfectly capable of knowing what
>> is in their own interests and acting accordingly.
>
>

> Children are often quite astute with their money[1].
>
> Economists, who are supposed to be, sell our gold reserves, use our
> money to bail out banks that screwed up due to other economists cocking
> it up and then say it's all our fault for not working hard
> enough/spending enough.
>

> They always come out with the same bullshit - "You don't understand
> economics". Yes I do you pompous, anonymous, twat (Not Bratt, let off
> on this one). The problem is that *you* don't. If you did the banks
> wouldn't be going bust.
>

> The man in the street probably has a better grasp of economics than some
> idiot with a degree.
>
> And I still haven't seen a reply from Bratt about wether he has a
> partner. Normal people would have been indignantly saying "Of course I
> have" (sorry, can't resist pushing this one, I don't really think he's
> gay and frankly I don't care, but if you find a needlepoint in someone
> who annoys you...)
>
> What is he hiding? ITWSBT
>
> If any of the usual crew tell me to stop I will.

Stop. Not that I disagree with what you're saying about economics and
economists, but personal attacks on irrelevant characteristics make me
uncomfortable.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-25-12 1:22 AM, GaryN wrote:
> "Harry Vaderchi"<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:op.weuqpbnx1r0rdn@dell3100:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:16 +0100, Nigel Stapley
>> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's rather like the trick apologists for religion pull; they claim
>>> that one can't critique religion *unless* you've studied theology
>>> (1).
>>
>>>
>>> (1) Possibly the most useless academic 'discipline' ever created,
>>> which is why I don't capitalise it.
>>
>> You can combine logic and religion? is that like having tea and no tea
>> at the same time?
>> (ah wrong froup)
>
> No Harry, exactly the right group to ask such a question. A long rambling
> discussion will probably ensue, beer and cheese and chocolate will almost
> certainly be mentioned..:-)

Quite so. I would say that combining logic and religion is more like
having your bread-product and eating it. It's not good for you, but it's
better than no bread-product.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:23 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But along with all the personal attacks on Brett, which I really don't
>> like, there are some perfectly rational and polite arguments opposing his
>> equally rational and polite (but wrong) arguments.
>
>> No. Most of the world's problems are caused by a breakdown in empathy.
>> "Evil begins when people start to treat other people as things", to quote
>> Granny [1]. This includes governments and employers who see their people
>> as interchangeable and disposable. Also individuals, departments,
>> governments and employers who are more concerned with The Rules than with
>> administering a fair and caring society that looks out for everyone in it.

>>
>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason why
>> the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well and
>> don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to understand.
>>
>

> Once upon a time, all economists believed in Homo Economicus, the Rational
> Man, who made all his decisions with the aid of a slide rule (it was that
> long ago) and the best information that careful attention could buy. They
> believed that, with their careful training, everybody could approximate to
> Homo Economicus, and all would be sweetens and carefully allocated light.
>
> About forty years ago, a radical minority realised Homo Economicus did not,
> and never would, exist. People have much too much going on in their lives
> waste time being rational with slide rules, and prefer to short circuit
> decisions by stuck short cuts as following the crowd (FSVO crowd), doing
> what they alway have done, following bad advice, and pure chance. This was,
> of course, initially denounced as heresy, buy as the older generation died
> off. It became mainstream. While not universally believed, I think it is
> now the general consensus of economists. The public, however, is
> understandably slow to react (for the same reasons) and still sees the old
> model of economists.

Nicely put! And of course, Government-employed economists and everybody
else who have some kind of power over what happens to other people
really should pay more attention to what people actually want, as well
as to what we actually do.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:29 AM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 24/05/12 16:05, Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>>> 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.

>>>
>>
>> No. Most of the world's problems are caused by a breakdown in empathy.
>

> Yes, but not in the way you suggest. When we put our money into a bank
> account we don't consider how that money is then invested to pay
> interest or pay for banking services we receive. It's likely to be
> invested in a company whose directors are forced to take decisions that
> we would disagree with. We don't have sufficient empathy with either the
> directors or the people affected by their decisions. It's abdication of
> responsibility.

Those poor bankers! The heart bleeds!

>
>
>> "Evil begins when people start to treat other people as things", to
>> quote Granny [1]. This includes governments and employers who see their
>> people as interchangeable and disposable. Also individuals, departments,
>> governments and employers who are more concerned with The Rules than
>> with administering a fair and caring society that looks out for everyone
>> in it.
>>
>> Economists seem to fall into both these groups, which is one reason why
>> the rest of us are so hostile to them. Even when they behave well and
>> don't go in for telling the rest of us that we're too stupid to
>> understand.
>

> It's shooting the messenger because they tell us stuff that we don't
> want to be true.
>

It's not at all true of most of us that we are too stupid to understand.
And it's certainly not true that market forces, bottom line,
cost-effectiveness and the other douchebag phrases [1] should be allowed
to determine what happens to people.

[1] http://www.facebook.com/WordsDouchebagsSay

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:45 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:jpliuu

> $204q$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 05-23-12 4:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
>>> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
>>> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
>>> to those who don't wear the safety
>>> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
>>> wash their hands.
>>
>> Even more horrible than concussion, blindness or ebola?
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>

> As I've mentioned before Lesley a great many safety procedures are
> *MORE* sodding dangerous than ignoring them.

I was just wondering what the penalties could possibly be. Don't tell
me, though. I'm so squeamish that I can no longer watch /The Borgias/,
much as I love Jeremy Irons and fascinating as it is to see Lucrezia
Borgia portrayed as an innocent victim and all-around Good Guy.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-24-12 11:33 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> While OSHA and NATE mandate 100% tie off,
>>> the video seems to portray tower climbers
>>> as "a breed apart" with a daredevil attitude.
>>>
>>> With that attitude, however, they may soon
>>> become an extinct breed.
>>
>> I don't think you can reasonably quote text
>> and then disclaim it unless you indicate
>> up-front that that's your intention.
>> And actually, wholesale text-grabbing of
>> an online article is not "fair use".
>> Hyperlink and some zingy line quotes is the
>> way. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

>>
>> So, anyway, it is evidently difficult to
>> get a workforce to follow safety rules.
>> Horrible penalties have to be threatened
>> to those who don't wear the safety
>> equipment - hard hat, goggles - or
>> wash their hands.
>>

>> At a recent hospital appointment, I noticed
>> a sign stating that they had scored 95%
>> for satisfactory hand hygiene, the day before.
>> I could have asked about that but I didn't.
>> I suppose that for instance if the test is
>> "Do you have something unpleasant that
>> shouldn't be there on your hands right now"
>> then the member of staff attending to me
>> would technically not qualify because she
>> was scrubbing something unpleasant off me
>> at that moment. Having said that, they wear
>> gloves - disposable, I think.
>
> I think the criterion is not that you don't get dirty, but that you wash
> your hands after every patient before touching another - without exception.
> The problem is that apparently healthy person A may be carrying a culture
> of a bacterium to which they have complete immunity, but which will make
> person B seriously, possibly fatally, ill. We are each potential plague
> carriers for each other, without exception. And the personal attentions a
> nurse may offer make the possibility of cross contamination much easier. So
> wash hands between patients, even if they appear 100% healthy.
>
> ISTR a report said that it was found that one of the worst sources of
> contamination was doctor's ties, which they wore to prove that they were
> the officers and gentlemen in the medical army. They did not like to be
> told to keep the out of the wards.

I saw a thing long ago about Ehrlich (I think? One of the haematoxylins
anyway) who invented having doctors wash their hands at all ever. The
women giving birth in his ward were far more likely to die of infection
than the women in the other ward, which was run by nuns. He realised
(eventually) that this was because his students went straight from
dissecting the corpses of women who had previously died from infection
following childbirth to examining the women currently in labour, without
bothering about their hands. While the nuns didn't wash their hands
either, they also didn't dissect corpses.

[Bernard Peek]

On 25/05/12 19:09, Lesley Weston wrote:

>> It's shooting the messenger because they tell us stuff that we don't
>> want to be true.
>>
>
> It's not at all true of most of us that we are too stupid to understand.

It's not a question of stupidity. Mostly economics is quite
straightforward. It's that most people are prepared to let other people
make decisions on their behalf. "Cant't be arsed."

> And it's certainly not true that market forces, bottom line,
> cost-effectiveness and the other douchebag phrases [1] should be allowed
> to determine what happens to people.

Those only happen because most people are prepared to let other people
make decisions on their behalf.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Nigel Stapley]

Sorry, I dispute this.

In most Western pseudo-democracies, the so-called 'centre ground' has
shifted sharply to the right in my lifetime. Policies which would have
been decried as lunatic by the Conservative governments of my childhood
(Macmillan, Home, Heath) would now be considered 'moderate' by most in
the political classes - and indeed (such has been the effect of that
shift via the propaganda of corporate media, including - alas - the BBC)
by the mass of the 'decent, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying,
cliché-ridden folk'.

That's why this régime and its immediate predecessor have been able to
get away with slashing the support available to the disabled, for
example, thanks to a concerted campaign of soundbite bingo which has
sought to portray *all* welfare claimants as 'scroungers' and 'thieves'
who are wrecking our wonderful economic recovery.

And that's why I always have a bitter little laugh when someone accuses
the Blair/Brown administrations of having been 'socialist'. Not only
does it indicate that the accuser doesn't know the meaning of the word
itself, I can't see - even by objective criteria - how kissing the arse
of corporations, being "deeply relaxed about the filthy rich",
encouraging a property and personal debt bubble, under-regulating a
predatory financial sector and getting heavily involved in foreign wars
on Washington/Wall Street's orders could be even mildly left-of-centre.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[Nigel Stapley]

I don't know which Ehrlich you are referring to, but I think this man
has a strong claim to such discoveries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haygarth