On 07/11/2012 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:56:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 1/	No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
>> religion that promises life after death.
>
> I disagree.  There are some who accept that that is the reality of the
> situation (to the best of anyone's actual knowledge), and are OK with
> that.
>

You are right to disagree. I was sloppy with my language.

>
>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>
> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.

I do.

> Objectively, there are ways to measure someone's competence (we do that all the time
> in the courts to determine if someone is 'competent to stand trial'),

True.

> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted on
> would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>

Obviously it does to people who believe that.
I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then 
you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might 
decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso 
facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
It is a slippery slope etc.

> In this election, for example, I was unaware that there were two
> positions being voted on for school boards.  As I was in the voting
> booth, it was too late for me to learn something about those issues, so I
> abstained from voting.  Too many people see choices like that and decide
> that their vote doesn't matter anyways, so they pick a choice at random.
>

I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than 
picking one who put themselves forward.


>
> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.

Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:43:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It sounds like those people who, when the new healthcare system (kind
> of)
> was ratified, threatened to move to Canada.

Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
Medicare" (a government-run program).

Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
hate about where the US is going.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.

The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse') 
that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.

Which is complete BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2012 1:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
>> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
>> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.
>
> The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse')
> that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.
>
> Which is complete BS.
>
> Jim
>
Yep. But, as to why.. Well..

1. We, literally, have been known to let out mental patients, to make 
room for people with small time drug busts, to.. that might be "one" 
explanation. lol

2. Otherwise, the simple reality is that the US is the only place, other 
then the Middle East, where being fanatical is a status symbol for 
politicians, not an embarrassment. And, when everyone from the TV, to 
the political parties, look for "controversy", instead of, "reality", 
when making decisions about how to win viewers/supporters.. rational 
solutions are somewhat lacking.

Finally, 3. There is the overtone window. We have spent 30 year being 
told, without successful refutation, that the delusional "trickle down 
economics" is actually an economic model, not a pyramid scheme on 
governmental scale, and like 70 years, having the super-Christians, who 
got pushed into the US out of Europe, and really only have places like 
Africa, to retreat to now (and with all those black people there... No, 
I am serious, this is almost certainly on huge reason they don't 
leave.), spread around everything from anti-gay, to anti-nonchristian, 
to anti-you name it, as "truth". Our side, has, regrettably, actually 
suffered one of those "slippery slope" things, by trying to find allies 
everyplace, even among those that where enemies, in an attempt to get 
the truth out. It works about as well when apposing pseudoscience, 
theocracy, and economic bullshit, as has the foreign policy it echos, 
i.e., "We will support this dictator because he promises to keep this 
other one in check, then help that one, in trade for oil, and so he can 
fight a war with a third one, so that some fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. 
nut will be weakened/give us something/not side with someone else, etc.

This is completely nuts of course, but... its pretty much exactly what 
certain people suggest be done to appose extreme religion. Side with 
group A, because they appose group B on some issue, but B, when its 
about something C causes problems with, etc. I am no math expert, but.. 
seems to me you have three outcomes from that kind of BS: 1. The net 
result is positive. 2. The net result is negative. 3. All the sums 
cancel, and you don't get anywhere at all (with the understanding that 
some subsets can still go really really negative, as long as someone 
else goes really really positive, producing no net gains or losses).

In other words, a damn stupid way to solve a serious problem with, for 
example, science understanding.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2012 10:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
>
Yes, and not all of them. He was definitely, for example, a major 
misogynist, and like Ayn Rand, his books can appeal to people that a) 
haven't grown up enough to really think about everything he said, or b) 
don't bother growing up at all. Some of his ideas are not bad, others.. 
not so great (unlike Rand, who well...).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
> Medicare" (a government-run program).

> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
> hate about where the US is going.

I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from the
citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient because
basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)

Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
*quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
practice in the US.

And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
(There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
>>> Dark Ages...
>>
>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
>> ages, certainly.
>
> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
> the world thinks about your country...

There are other countries?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
>
> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)

Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be 
British... :-(

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>>> the world thinks about your country...
>>
>> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)
> 
> Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be
> British... :-(

All I need to say is "Phone Hacking" to get most of my British friends to 
cringe.  Or "Jeremy Hunt". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:34:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my
>> Medicare" (a government-run program).
> 
>> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without
>> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they
>> hate about where the US is going.
> 
> I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
> healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from
> the citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient
> because basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)
> 
> Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
> *quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
> European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
> think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
> practice in the US.
> 
> And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
> If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
> (There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
> waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

Oh, yes, I agree - but there are those here in the US who believe that 
European-style healthcare is inferior and more expensive.

We had a presidential candidate who (as mentioned previously) thinks 
there's nothing wrong with letting people go to the emergency room when 
things get bad enough if they don't have health insurance - that that's 
somehow magically cheaper than preventative care.

Which shows just how out of touch people who have money are with the 
plight of those who have none.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:59:38 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like
>>>> the Dark Ages...
>>>
>>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the
>>> dark ages, certainly.
>>
>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
> 
> There are other countries?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>>
>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
> 
> I do.

Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

>> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted
>> on would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>>
>>
> Obviously it does to people who believe that.
> I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then
> you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
> If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might
> decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso
> facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
> It is a slippery slope etc.

I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're 
saying.

It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party 
doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.  IOW, if 
there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for 
those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support 
reality as it is.

We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.

We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in 
manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high 
speeds.

We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary 
understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.

And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand 
that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of 
the world around us.  That evolution is real, for example.  That climate 
change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are 
in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with 
those issues.

I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and 
weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on 
an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and 
sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured 
view of their past or childhood).

Reality sometimes sucks, and denying reality doesn't make it suck any 
less.  Sticking your head in the sand and saying "climate change isn't 
real" or mumbling some nonsense about 'hockey-stick graphs' as the reason 
for denying that the world is getting warmer and we /can/ do something 
about it if we /put our minds to it/ doesn't actually get the problems 
fixed, and that sometimes doing nothing is amongst the worst things you 
can do.

> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
> picking one who put themselves forward.

I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did 
it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it 
wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems 
in the US political system).

>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
> 
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?

I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a 
part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal 
service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though, 
but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of 
sacrifice - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many 
who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat 
unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always 
understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.

That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are 
more likely to make a better-informed decision.

Which is not to say that military service is/should be the only path to 
eligibility to vote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>> allowed to hold political office.
>
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
> easy it's pointless.

"The problem is not that certain classes are unfit to govern.  Every 
class is unfit to govern."

The notion that our political problems can be solved by granting power 
to the right people is inherently flawed.  Power always winds up in the 
hands of the least trustworthy because the most trustworthy have utterly 
no interest in power.

First of all, the basic desire for power--that is, the desire for the 
ability to compel others--is inherently anti-rational.  This places it 
in direct conflict with the rational virtues, such as honestly and 
self-control.  Hence politicans, of every party, will always come from 
the shallow end of the virtue pool.

Second, every worthy sentiment has avenues of expression outside of 
politics.  You can feed the poor, shelter the homeless, cure diseases, 
create beauty, make money, and/or save the world without garnering even 
one vote in an election, because the realm of human endeavor has scope 
for all of these activities in the private sector even more so than in 
the public sector.  Not so with power.  If you want power, real power, 
politics is the only game in town.  Therefore those who enter politics 
with a genuinely noble purpose have an outlet for their sentiments in 
private life, and will feel the call of that life, especially in the 
face of the slings and arrows of public office.  Those who enter 
politics for the power have no outlet.  They must win if they are to 
have what is most important to them.  Being more desperate to obtain or 
retain power, and less concerned with honor and honesty to start with, 
they are more than willing to lie, cheat and slander in order to 
prevail, and more willing to endure whatever lies, cheating and slander 
hinders them.

So not only are the rotters overrepresented among the political class, 
they are even more overrepresented among the victorious of any political 
campaign.

Third, holding power has a distinct negative effect on personal ethics. 
  Simply holding power--or even imagining oneself to have power--has 
been seen in behavioral testing to make a person more likely to lie, 
overestimate their abilities, and excuse their own wrongdoing, and less 
likely to tolerate wrongdoing in others or emphasize with other people.

In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of 
the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than 
before.

The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only 
thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> The notion that our political problems can be solved by granting power 
> to the right people is inherently flawed.  Power always winds up in the 
> hands of the least trustworthy because the most trustworthy have utterly 
> no interest in power.

A large society (meaning more than a few hundreds of people) cannot work
properly and efficiently without some kind of organization and people who
are in charge of organizing. In order for society to work, everybody (or
at least those who are able) have to work to make it work. But not
everybody can (nor should) have the same tasks. Organizing the tasks and
economy of very large amounts of people just requires a hierarchy of
people to organize it, to lay out plans, to distribute tasks.

Government is a necessity in any society larger than a few hundreds of
people, if that society wants to have standards of living better than
mud huts and hunting-gathering.

Many forms of government have been tried during the entire history of
humanity. So far representative democracy seems to be the one that
achieves the most good with the least amount of negative sides. (One of
its major advantages is that it's, in principle, self-corrective: If
incompetent people end up in the government, they will eventually be
replaced by better candidates. At least in theory. Of course there are
many stumbling blocks in the path of achieving this perfect situation,
psychology being one of the biggest ones.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-13 21:17, John VanSickle a écrit :
> On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
> In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of
> the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than
> before.
>
> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

It just moves power in the hands of someone else.  If govt is not 
involved in a field, whether it's education, garbage removal, road 
repair, nuclear defense, you name it.  Someone else needs to be in 
charge of it, and that someone is not any more or any less impervious to 
be corrupted by power.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2012 9:12 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-11-13 21:17, John VanSickle a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
>> In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of
>> the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than
>> before.
>>
>> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
>> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.
>
> It just moves power in the hands of someone else.  If govt is not
> involved in a field, whether it's education, garbage removal, road
> repair, nuclear defense, you name it.  Someone else needs to be in
> charge of it, and that someone is not any more or any less impervious to
> be corrupted by power.
>
And, when the situation requires immediate solutions, they often lack 
the time, raw resources, people, and access to necessary expertise, to 
actually do the job. There is a reason we don't let corporations, since 
like the very early days, when people first started making paved roads, 
decide which roads get paved. There was this odd tendency for some to 
make crappy roads, for them to place tolls all over, if they bothered to 
make other roads at all, or for them to only build and maintain the 
roads **they** needed. When cities are in charge, the roads suck 
slightly less. When the state is in charge, and they are not 
underfunded, and pushing the money to other crap, it worked well. Right 
up until they "defunded" those projects, in favor of their own biased 
idiocies, and let the roads rot. And so on.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/11/2012 11:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
>>
>> I do.
>
> Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

First time.


>
> I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're
> saying.
>

Not always but it is there and can happen.

> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.

Tell that to the marines. ;-)

> IOW, if
> there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for
> those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support
> reality as it is.
>

Bad example, I think. Parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party, here 
in the UK are for disaffected voters.

My answers to the following statements are all the same. Maybe it is 
because I am old and disillusioned.

> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>

Hope our doctors...

> We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in
> manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high
> speeds.
>

Hope people driving cars...


> We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary
> understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.
>

Hope expect our politicians...

Actually you should expect every other road user is an idiot and drive 
defensively.

> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand
> that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of
> the world around us.

Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.

> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
> those issues.
>

I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big 
Business" supporters would even say that.


> I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and
> weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on
> an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and
> sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured
> view of their past or childhood).
>

Again, that is American centric. The 50's in Europe was not that good. 
The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember 
playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant 
puddles in the street.


>
>> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
>> picking one who put themselves forward.
>
> I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did
> it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it
> wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems
> in the US political system).
>

Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes). He 
was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then proceeded to 
change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he could succeed. 
(Not just my opinion)

>>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>>
>> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
> I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a
> part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal
> service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though,

That is the one I was thinking about.

> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
> sacrifice

Does paying your taxes count?

> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat

I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but 
the donkeys certainly don't. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys


> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.
>

I don't think that you can know what it could be like. Unless you happen 
to live an an area where there has been fighting.

> That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are
> more likely to make a better-informed decision.
>

Maybe Jon Stewart should be made compulsory viewing over there?

On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on Monday

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/11/2012 2:50 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>>
>> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>>
>>
> Yes, and not all of them. He was definitely, for example, a major
> misogynist, and like Ayn Rand, his books can appeal to people that a)
> haven't grown up enough to really think about everything he said, or b)
> don't bother growing up at all. Some of his ideas are not bad, others..
> not so great (unlike Rand, who well...).

I haven't read Rand but when I tried to re-read Heinlein I could not 
because his views got in the way of the story.
I was thinking about having to have had public service (read military) 
before getting the franchise.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/11/2012 2:17 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

I agreed with most of what you said except the above "solution"

In Europe we had about 1500 years of small countries with small 
governments. We also had about 1500 years of constant warfare. Since 
Europe was united after WWII it has been quite peaceful here (not 
counting Ireland and exporting troops to other areas).
IMO we need big governments to protect the common man from big business.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
>> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.
>
> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>
Or any parties.

>> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>>
>
> Hope our doctors...
>
Unless you are, say, Ireland, where you kill a woman, because the 
"Catholic law" says you can save the mother, if needed, but not if the 
baby still has a heart beat. The problem, of course, being the 
definitions of a) endangered and b) heartbeat. Apparently.. "Won't 
live", doesn't count for the later, and the former... well, that only 
counts once septis has set in, and her odds of surviving, even if you do 
something, has been reduced to near 0. Makes you wonder.. If appendixes 
where "sacred", would you have to wait until they burst to remove them too?

One hopes, but isn't at all encouraged, that this will result in 
"something" happening as a consequence.

>> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
>> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
>> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
>> those issues.
>>
>
> I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big
> Business" supporters would even say that.
>
>
Haven't looked at Australia then? Mind, that isn't Europe, but, still. 
Wackos every place. What is worse, a study on the subject showed that 
both skeptics and people that denied climate change, overestimated the 
percentage of the population holding the, "We think its fake.", view. 
The skeptics thought it was as much as 20%, the anti-climate change 
people thought it was more like 45%. The real number was like.. under 
10%, but I don't remember the exact number. What differed the most is 
the refusal of the anti-climate change people in even accepting that 
there was a consensus, at all, among scientists. Bets on the numbers of 
creationism being similar...

>> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
>> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat
>
> I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but
> the donkeys certainly don't. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys
>
Maybe in Europe.. Over here, it seems like being shot at, and almost 
killed makes one almost as great a hero as throwing a football, and the 
ones that have been in combat think the military is, "too small", and we 
haven't had, "enough wars". This isn't the case of all of them, or even 
a majority, of course, but.. those people are not the ones running for 
office, on the stance that, among all their other idiocies, "We are 
undermining our ability to spread fear to all the people that will then 
attack us, since they don't fear us any more." Uh.. yeah, and somehow I 
can't be surprised we are seeing a remake of Red Dawn, where the high 
school team is the Wolverines. Apparently, only American's fight like 
cornered animals, when invaded, or abused, or treated like shit, or 
threatened, or our professed saviors side with the nutcase next door, 
because they offered an oil deal. Sigh...

In any case, no.. A lot of the people I have seen that have been, "in 
combat", and vote conservative, are completely bloody nuts, and have no 
problem at all getting more people (as long as its someone else this 
time) killed in wars. If this was a criteria for having someone want to 
avoid them, Europe would have found peace during the middle ages, when 
*everyone* was at war with everyone else. Bigger weapons has only scared 
"some" of the people out of this sort of bullshit, "We can win, with 
acceptable casualties!", thinking.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/4/2012 3:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> I hear that at many places in the United States (although I'm sure it's
> not the only country in the world with this problem, but I get the
> impression that it's one of the worst of its kind) boards of education
> are often staffed by people who are completely illiterate in terms of
> science and education. And it's precisely these people who decide what
> is and isn't taught at schools. Apparently they get to those positions
> for political reasons and because of a buddy system, not because they
> would be the most competent for that position.

In our district there was no political pressure to leave certain topics 
unsaid.  Evolution was as much a part of the curriculum in biology as 
the periodic table was in chemistry.

My experience was that up until seventh grade (children aged 12-13 
years), science education was zilch, and past that point there was very 
little rigor until high school, and then only for those students who 
elected to take the classes where stuff was actually taught.

Politics had nothing to do with it.  The district administration had 
simply decided that science wasn't important.

If I had to lay a finger on one characteristic of our public school 
establishment that is especially bad, I would have to say that it has a 
great tendency to be influenced more by fads than by sound principles.

The New Math was one such fad.  It had a particular theory about how 
math should be taught, and as far as I can tell from looking into it, it 
was implemented on a large scale without any significant testing to see 
if it was as effective as its proponents claimed.  By all accounts it 
was a failure.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Actually you should expect every other road user is an idiot and drive
> defensively.

Slightly tangential, but even that's not enough. You should assume that every
other road user is deadly skilled and *actively trying to kill you*.

:)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:35:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're
>> saying.
>>
> Not always but it is there and can happen.

The solution to dealing with the "slippery slope" isn't to avoid starting 
something that /may/ head that direction, but to be vigilant about when 
things start sliding.

>> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a
>> party doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.
> 
> Tell that to the marines. ;-)

???  I don't understand.

> Bad example, I think. Parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party, here
> in the UK are for disaffected voters.

Better to include a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I think.

> Actually you should expect every other road user is an idiot and drive
> defensively.

That's about our individual behaviour, though - we still expect (or 
"hope" if you wish) that those who have earned a license demonstrated 
some basic competency in driving a motor vehicle.

And most of the time, that's a valid expectation to have, otherwise there 
would be far more accidents.

>> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to
>> understand that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying
>> the facts of the world around us.
> 
> Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.

I'm not that disillusioned yet. ;)

>> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate change is happening.
>>  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are in fact the way the
>> world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with those issues.
>>
> I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big
> Business" supporters would even say that.

Sure, but my frame of reference is American politics, where we have 
idiots like Broun, Akin (no more), and Mourdock (again, no more).

>> I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and
>> weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based
>> on an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and
>> sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured
>> view of their past or childhood).
>>
> Again, that is American centric. The 50's in Europe was not that good.

See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for a 
"better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to Beaver", 
an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike today 
where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view, incidentally, is 
most often put forth by the Republican party, which ironically bills 
itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but they won't take 
responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift the blame for the 
current situation to anyone *but* them).

> The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember
> playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant
> puddles in the street.

I'd believe that. :)

> Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes). He
> was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then proceeded to
> change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he could succeed.
> (Not just my opinion)

I'd take your Blair if you'd take our Bush Jr., Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

>> I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a
>> part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal
>> service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though,
> 
> That is the one I was thinking about.

That's what I guessed. ;)

>> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
>> sacrifice
> 
> Does paying your taxes count?

That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a 
passive activity, like paying your phone bill.

>> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many who see
>> combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat
> 
> I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but
> the donkeys certainly don't. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys

I think it makes a difference if it's the lions making that decision or 
someone who remembers what it was to be a donkey (to extend the metaphor) 
in the heat of battle.

I think there also is a difference in the experience between those two 
groups - military leaders who got there not through combat experience but 
by being in the officer corps are different than those who enlist and 
work their way up through the ranks.

>> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
>> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into
>> combat.
>>
> I don't think that you can know what it could be like. Unless you happen
> to live an an area where there has been fighting.

Personally, I can't - and I wouldn't want to be in a position of making 
such a decision, because I haven't lived it.

>> That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation
>> are more likely to make a better-informed decision.
>>
> Maybe Jon Stewart should be made compulsory viewing over there?

LOL - I do find his perspective to be extremely interesting - and over 
the past couple of years, he's just gotten that much better, taking it to 
a whole other level.  Watched him interview/debate Newt Gingrich a few 
days ago, and it was quite good.

> On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on Monday

I hadn't when you wrote this (busy week, hopefully have an interview in 
the next couple of weeks and I've been prepping for it as well as doing 
the contract work), but I have now.  Enjoyed it very much - and 
appreciated the reminder that it was that time again. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/17/2012 5:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for a
> "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to Beaver",
> an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike today
> where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view, incidentally, is
> most often put forth by the Republican party, which ironically bills
> itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but they won't take
> responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift the blame for the
> current situation to anyone *but* them).
>
You noticed that too? ;)

And, married people didn't sleep in the same bed, a gun actually 
functioned as a deterrent, not an escalation, and.. But, these are the 
same party that hosts the, "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or 
at least the bits we don't gloss over.", people. Its hardly a surprise 
that they pick a work of complete and total fiction as a hallmark of the 
old days, then insist that everything has gone down hill from there.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:01:39 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 11/17/2012 5:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for
>> a "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to
>> Beaver", an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike
>> today where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view,
>> incidentally, is most often put forth by the Republican party, which
>> ironically bills itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but
>> they won't take responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift
>> the blame for the current situation to anyone *but* them).
>>
> You noticed that too? ;)

It's kinda hard to miss. ;)

> And, married people didn't sleep in the same bed, a gun actually
> functioned as a deterrent, not an escalation, and.. But, these are the
> same party that hosts the, "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or
> at least the bits we don't gloss over.", people. Its hardly a surprise
> that they pick a work of complete and total fiction as a hallmark of the
> old days, then insist that everything has gone down hill from there.

Yep.  This election, though, reality crashed their party.  I know many 
who said that Nate Silver was full of sh*t and that he couldn't /
possibly/ know anything with his particular brand of voodoo.

Except that his particular brand of voodoo was science, math, and deep 
statistical analysis of the data combined with some modeling.  You know, 
*pixie dust and unicorns*.

That missed one race out of all of them (IIRC, he missed the Gov. of one 
of the Dakotas).

Everything else was pretty much dead on.

So now they're faced with their belief not being sufficient to win in 
spite of facts telling them otherwise.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or 
> at least the bits we don't gloss over."

The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.

(That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 19/11/2012 14:58, Warp a écrit :
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or 
>> at least the bits we don't gloss over."
> 
> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
> 
> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
> 


It's kind of ok, but often;

 "The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it (correctly)."
is heard/internalized as
 "The Bible is true as long as you (correctly) interpret it literally."

Which is a totally different beast.

(And "literally" is yet another term for fight, see xkcd )

 The statement "the sky weights an elephant and smells red." is
literally true as long as you interpret it correctly. (and I'm not
giving any clue)

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2012 1:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> The solution to dealing with the "slippery slope" isn't to avoid starting
> something that /may/ head that direction, but to be vigilant about when
> things start sliding.
>

I don’t know about the history of suffrage in America. In Britain we had 
to fight for the right and I am violently opposed to any reduction, even 
if it is in the best interest. Whose best interest, I wonder?

>>> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a
>>> party doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.
>>
>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>
> ???  I don't understand.
>

Nowadays we generally vote for a party. Gone are the days when an 
individual made any difference. Of course there are exceptions.

>> Bad example, I think. Parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party, here
>> in the UK are for disaffected voters.
>
> Better to include a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I think.
>

Yes that would be better. The only alternative is not to vote at all. 
Then if things go wrong you have no one to blame but yourself.


> That's about our individual behaviour, though - we still expect (or
> "hope" if you wish) that those who have earned a license demonstrated
> some basic competency in driving a motor vehicle.
>

Yes hope. ;-). Only tonight I had to slam the brakes on because the car 
in front of me, on the highway, decided to slow down and let a van that 
was on a slip road out. This is on a 70 mph stretch of road and in the 
dark. Luckily I learned to drive in a car whose brakes were almost non 
existent so I always leave lots of room between the car in front and mine.

> And most of the time, that's a valid expectation to have, otherwise there
> would be far more accidents.
>

Yes.

>>> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to
>>> understand that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying
>>> the facts of the world around us.
>>
>> Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.
>
> I'm not that disillusioned yet. ;)
>

Let me know when you are. :-)

>>> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate change is happening.
>>>   That these things aren't "from the devil" but are in fact the way the
>>> world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with those issues.
>>>
>> I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big
>> Business" supporters would even say that.
>
> Sure, but my frame of reference is American politics, where we have
> idiots like Broun, Akin (no more), and Mourdock (again, no more).
>

Fair point.


> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for a
> "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to Beaver",
> an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike today
> where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view, incidentally, is
> most often put forth by the Republican party, which ironically bills
> itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but they won't take
> responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift the blame for the
> current situation to anyone *but* them).
>

I don't like the Republicans either, they make our Tories seem like good 
guys.

>> The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember
>> playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant
>> puddles in the street.
>
> I'd believe that. :)
>

Tell that to the youth of today... ;-)

>> Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes). He
>> was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then proceeded to
>> change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he could succeed.
>> (Not just my opinion)
>
> I'd take your Blair if you'd take our Bush Jr., Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
>

Bloody ek! NO!
Do I look that soft? ;-)


>
>>> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
>>> sacrifice
>>
>> Does paying your taxes count?
>
> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>

Only if you don't have a good accountant.

>>> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many who see
>>> combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat
>>
>> I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but
>> the donkeys certainly don't. See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys
>
> I think it makes a difference if it's the lions making that decision or
> someone who remembers what it was to be a donkey (to extend the metaphor)
> in the heat of battle.
>

The lions or grunts do not get to make the decisions.

> I think there also is a difference in the experience between those two
> groups - military leaders who got there not through combat experience but
> by being in the officer corps are different than those who enlist and
> work their way up through the ranks.
>
In our services it is very hard to go from the ranks to being 
commissioned and even then there is only so far that they can go.

>>> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
>>> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into
>>> combat.
>>>

Do they care if it is not them or theirs?

>> I don't think that you can know what it could be like. Unless you happen
>> to live an an area where there has been fighting.
>
> Personally, I can't - and I wouldn't want to be in a position of making
> such a decision, because I haven't lived it.
>

Me too. Praise the Lord.

>>> That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation
>>> are more likely to make a better-informed decision.
>>>
>> Maybe Jon Stewart should be made compulsory viewing over there?
>
> LOL - I do find his perspective to be extremely interesting - and over
> the past couple of years, he's just gotten that much better, taking it to
> a whole other level.  Watched him interview/debate Newt Gingrich a few
> days ago, and it was quite good.
>

I've not seen him for ages but I saw some clips from the Young Turks at 
the weekend.

>> On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on Monday
>
> I hadn't when you wrote this (busy week, hopefully have an interview in
> the next couple of weeks and I've been prepping for it as well as doing
> the contract work), but I have now.  Enjoyed it very much - and
> appreciated the reminder that it was that time again. :)
>

Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck, that's 
cruel, sorry.)

I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it. 
Maybe at the weekend.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:28:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> The solution to dealing with the "slippery slope" isn't to avoid
>> starting something that /may/ head that direction, but to be vigilant
>> about when things start sliding.
>>
> I don’t know about the history of suffrage in America. In Britain we had
> to fight for the right and I am violently opposed to any reduction, even
> if it is in the best interest. Whose best interest, I wonder?

We fought a war with Britain over it. ;)

As for whose best interest, I have to quote Star Trek:  "The needs of the 
many outweigh the needs of the few."

>>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>>
>> ???  I don't understand.
>>
> Nowadays we generally vote for a party. Gone are the days when an
> individual made any difference. Of course there are exceptions.

OIC.

>> Better to include a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I think.
>>
> Yes that would be better. The only alternative is not to vote at all.
> Then if things go wrong you have no one to blame but yourself.

Yep.  And not voting is different than voting for nobody, as there's the 
distinction between apathy and participation to be drawn.

>> That's about our individual behaviour, though - we still expect (or
>> "hope" if you wish) that those who have earned a license demonstrated
>> some basic competency in driving a motor vehicle.
>>
> Yes hope. ;-). Only tonight I had to slam the brakes on because the car
> in front of me, on the highway, decided to slow down and let a van that
> was on a slip road out. This is on a 70 mph stretch of road and in the
> dark. Luckily I learned to drive in a car whose brakes were almost non
> existent so I always leave lots of room between the car in front and
> mine.

Glad you're OK.

>>>> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to
>>>> understand that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't
>>>> denying the facts of the world around us.
>>>
>>> Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.
>>
>> I'm not that disillusioned yet. ;)
>>
> Let me know when you are. :-)

I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If 
supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't 
disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either. ;)

>> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for
>> a "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to
>> Beaver", an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike
>> today where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view,
>> incidentally, is most often put forth by the Republican party, which
>> ironically bills itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but
>> they won't take responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift
>> the blame for the current situation to anyone *but* them).
>>
> I don't like the Republicans either, they make our Tories seem like good
> guys.

Hehehehehehe, yeah, I know.  If I were in the UK, I'd probably be LibDem 
or Green leaning.  Though Clegg hasn't really impressed.

>>> The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember
>>> playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant
>>> puddles in the street.
>>
>> I'd believe that. :)
>>
> Tell that to the youth of today... ;-)

LOL

>>> Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes).
>>> He was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then
>>> proceeded to change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he
>>> could succeed.
>>> (Not just my opinion)
>>
>> I'd take your Blair if you'd take our Bush Jr., Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
>>
> Bloody ek! NO!

Fair is fair.

> Do I look that soft? ;-)

I dunno, don't think I've ever seen a picture of you, come to think of it.

>> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
>> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>>
> Only if you don't have a good accountant.

s/a good/an/

That's the case for most Americans, it seems.

>> I think it makes a difference if it's the lions making that decision or
>> someone who remembers what it was to be a donkey (to extend the
>> metaphor)
>> in the heat of battle.
>>
> The lions or grunts do not get to make the decisions.

Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way 
around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes 
that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one in 
charge.

>> I think there also is a difference in the experience between those two
>> groups - military leaders who got there not through combat experience
>> but by being in the officer corps are different than those who enlist
>> and work their way up through the ranks.
>>
> In our services it is very hard to go from the ranks to being
> commissioned and even then there is only so far that they can go.

I think that's the case here as well, but yeah, I know in the UK there's 
a bit of a class division there as well.  Got a friend who was in the 
upper of those ranks, and he can get quite annoying at times when it 
comes to telling stories about the royals that he's interacted with. 
<rolleyes>

>>>> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
>>>> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into
>>>> combat.
>>>>
> Do they care if it is not them or theirs?

Some do, if they actually took experience away from the experience.  But 
that's another point, too, that sending your own children into battle is 
different than those of a stranger.

>> Personally, I can't - and I wouldn't want to be in a position of making
>> such a decision, because I haven't lived it.
>>
> Me too. Praise the Lord.

Or the FSM. ;)

>> LOL - I do find his perspective to be extremely interesting - and over
>> the past couple of years, he's just gotten that much better, taking it
>> to a whole other level.  Watched him interview/debate Newt Gingrich a
>> few days ago, and it was quite good.
>>
> I've not seen him for ages but I saw some clips from the Young Turks at
> the weekend.

I wonder if you can view what's on thedailyshow.com - not sure if there's 
a geographical restriction or not.
 
>>> On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on
>>> Monday
>>
>> I hadn't when you wrote this (busy week, hopefully have an interview in
>> the next couple of weeks and I've been prepping for it as well as doing
>> the contract work), but I have now.  Enjoyed it very much - and
>> appreciated the reminder that it was that time again. :)
>>
>>
> Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck, that's
> cruel, sorry.)

LOL - I spent the entire weekend prepping (even though it's not scheduled 
yet), installing the product (I've installed the predecessors), making 
notes, analysing what data I can get my hands on (not much).

I met the hiring manager before the position was opened, and that helps, 
because I have an idea what to expect.  I'm very familiar with the 
company and the product's predecessors, know lots of people (including at 
least one person he reports to - the guy who introduced us) at the 
company who know him - so I think my chances are good.  They want a 
degree (and prefer an MBA for the role), but I think my experience and 
skills stand a good chance of offsetting that as a hard requirement (and 
often while those are listed as requirements, they're not a hard 
requirement if someone with the right mix of skills and experience comes 
along).

> I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it.
> Maybe at the weekend.

They seem to have become more comfortable as a team than in previous 
series with Jack at the helm.

Must remember to grab the new one tonight. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/18/2012 6:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:01:39 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2012 5:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for
>>> a "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to
>>> Beaver", an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike
>>> today where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view,
>>> incidentally, is most often put forth by the Republican party, which
>>> ironically bills itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but
>>> they won't take responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift
>>> the blame for the current situation to anyone *but* them).
>>>
>> You noticed that too? ;)
>
> It's kinda hard to miss. ;)
>
>> And, married people didn't sleep in the same bed, a gun actually
>> functioned as a deterrent, not an escalation, and.. But, these are the
>> same party that hosts the, "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or
>> at least the bits we don't gloss over.", people. Its hardly a surprise
>> that they pick a work of complete and total fiction as a hallmark of the
>> old days, then insist that everything has gone down hill from there.
>
> Yep.  This election, though, reality crashed their party.  I know many
> who said that Nate Silver was full of sh*t and that he couldn't /
> possibly/ know anything with his particular brand of voodoo.
>
> Except that his particular brand of voodoo was science, math, and deep
> statistical analysis of the data combined with some modeling.  You know,
> *pixie dust and unicorns*.
>
> That missed one race out of all of them (IIRC, he missed the Gov. of one
> of the Dakotas).
>
> Everything else was pretty much dead on.
>
> So now they're faced with their belief not being sufficient to win in
> spite of facts telling them otherwise.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah. To use a Star Wars reference, I am so happy *we* decided to keep 
Chancellor Valorim, instead of electing Palpatine, but even so, it was a 
closer miss than I liked, statistics or otherwise.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/19/2012 5:58 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or
>> at least the bits we don't gloss over."
>
> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
>
> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
>
What contradictions? You mean, its actually hard to explain away things 
like: Romans - Nice people go to heaven. vs. Ecclesiastics - There is 
nothing for anyone in death, you will gain nothing, be rewarded with 
nothing, do nothing, learn nothing, etc., etc...? I would think it would 
be real simple! lol

and, that is just one of the funniest contradictions (from the position 
of rejecting deities), in there.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
> >
> > (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
> >
> What contradictions?

No. I mean that something that's accurate and literally true wouldn't
need interpretation to be understood properly. The very fact that it
requires interpretation (and that it's open up to it) is contradictory
to the claim that it's literal.

(And it being open up to interpretation really can be seen, given that
there are over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity, all of them
varying interpretations, some of them with wildly varying ones, even on
core issues.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19/11/2012 10:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> I don’t know about the history of suffrage in America. In Britain we had
>> to fight for the right and I am violently opposed to any reduction, even
>> if it is in the best interest. Whose best interest, I wonder?
>
> We fought a war with Britain over it. ;)
>

Quite right too..

BTW who won?


> As for whose best interest, I have to quote Star Trek:  "The needs of the
> many outweigh the needs of the few."
>
>>>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>>>
>>> ???  I don't understand.
>>>

It means that I doubt the veracity of your statement. :-P


> Yep.  And not voting is different than voting for nobody, as there's the
> distinction between apathy and participation to be drawn.
>

True.

>
> Glad you're OK.
>

I just had to brake harder than I would have wanted to.


> I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
> supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
> disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either. ;)
>

No, but old age can. :-)


>
> Hehehehehehe, yeah, I know.  If I were in the UK, I'd probably be LibDem
> or Green leaning.  Though Clegg hasn't really impressed.
>

He hasn't impressed his own party either.
But then (here I go again) he is a politician.


>> Do I look that soft? ;-)
>
> I dunno, don't think I've ever seen a picture of you, come to think of it.
>

I am a bit camera shy.

>>> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
>>> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>>>
>> Only if you don't have a good accountant.
>
> s/a good/an/
>

Sorry, I don't get that. :-(


> Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
> around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
> that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one in
> charge.
>

Probably one of the reasons that you had so many dissatisfied vets from Nam.


> I think that's the case here as well, but yeah, I know in the UK there's
> a bit of a class division there as well.  Got a friend who was in the
> upper of those ranks, and he can get quite annoying at times when it
> comes to telling stories about the royals that he's interacted with.
> <rolleyes>
>

If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert. ;-)


> Some do, if they actually took experience away from the experience.  But
> that's another point, too, that sending your own children into battle is
> different than those of a stranger.
>

How many children of senators went to the Gulf or Afghanistan?

>>>
>> Me too. Praise the Lord.
>
> Or the FSM. ;)

Lordy, that brings back memories.

>
> I wonder if you can view what's on thedailyshow.com - not sure if there's
> a geographical restriction or not.
>

Only clips, last time I looked.

>> Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck, that's
>> cruel, sorry.)
>
> LOL - I spent the entire weekend prepping (even though it's not scheduled
> yet), installing the product (I've installed the predecessors), making
> notes, analysing what data I can get my hands on (not much).
>

The way to go. :-D

> I met the hiring manager before the position was opened, and that helps,
> because I have an idea what to expect.  I'm very familiar with the
> company and the product's predecessors, know lots of people (including at
> least one person he reports to - the guy who introduced us) at the
> company who know him - so I think my chances are good.  They want a
> degree (and prefer an MBA for the role), but I think my experience and
> skills stand a good chance of offsetting that as a hard requirement (and
> often while those are listed as requirements, they're not a hard
> requirement if someone with the right mix of skills and experience comes
> along).
>

Right, often HR will put it in the job spec but the hiring boss just 
wants someone who can do the job of at least learn quickly.

BTW What has Business Administration got to do with technical roles?

>> I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it.
>> Maybe at the weekend.
>
> They seem to have become more comfortable as a team than in previous
> series with Jack at the helm.

I thought that they had settles in fine, last season.

>
> Must remember to grab the new one tonight. :)
>
Good luck. I tried tonight (Wednesday) and it still hasn't been 
uploaded, here. :-(



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/21/2012 5:01 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
>>>
>>> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
>>>
>> What contradictions?
>
> No. I mean that something that's accurate and literally true wouldn't
> need interpretation to be understood properly. The very fact that it
> requires interpretation (and that it's open up to it) is contradictory
> to the claim that it's literal.
>
> (And it being open up to interpretation really can be seen, given that
> there are over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity, all of them
> varying interpretations, some of them with wildly varying ones, even on
> core issues.)
>
More or less my point, though, in fact, the real point is, that you also 
can't "not" interpret such a thing, when it can't even get basic things, 
at the core of its entire story, straight, like, whether or not you 
actually still exist in any sense you did in life (or anything vaguely 
resembling that, or, even at all). Taken "literal", the implication of 
ecclesiastics *should be*, "Don't screw up now, because there isn't any 
'after'". Its not until the NT that they borrow Roman/Greek nonsense 
about an afterlife, then try to make it sound like something better than 
the sort of endless, but otherwise, meaningless existence they thought 
there was in death.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:11:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> We fought a war with Britain over it. ;)
>>
> Quite right too..
> 
> BTW who won?

I guess that's a matter of perspective. ;)

>>>>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> ???  I don't understand.
>>>>
> It means that I doubt the veracity of your statement. :-P

Ah, I see. :)

>> I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
>> supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
>> disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either.
>> ;)
>>
> No, but old age can. :-)

I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.  :)

>> Hehehehehehe, yeah, I know.  If I were in the UK, I'd probably be
>> LibDem or Green leaning.  Though Clegg hasn't really impressed.
>>
>>
> He hasn't impressed his own party either.
> But then (here I go again) he is a politician.

That's certainly true (both things). :)

>>> Do I look that soft? ;-)
>>
>> I dunno, don't think I've ever seen a picture of you, come to think of
>> it.
>>
>>
> I am a bit camera shy.

So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.

>>>> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
>>>> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>>>>
>>> Only if you don't have a good accountant.
>>
>> s/a good/an/
>>
> Sorry, I don't get that. :-(

Regex parsing.  I'm changing your statement from:

"Only if you don't have a good accountant."

to

"Only if you don't have an accountant."

:)

>> Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
>> around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
>> that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one
>> in charge.
>>
> Probably one of the reasons that you had so many dissatisfied vets from
> Nam.

Very possibly.

>> I think that's the case here as well, but yeah, I know in the UK
>> there's a bit of a class division there as well.  Got a friend who was
>> in the upper of those ranks, and he can get quite annoying at times
>> when it comes to telling stories about the royals that he's interacted
>> with. <rolleyes>
>>
> If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert. ;-)

Ooooh, I'll have to remember that. ;)

>> Some do, if they actually took experience away from the experience. 
>> But that's another point, too, that sending your own children into
>> battle is different than those of a stranger.
>>
> How many children of senators went to the Gulf or Afghanistan?

Not nearly enough.  A few, though.  ISTR that one of Biden's kids either 
served or is serving.

>>> Me too. Praise the Lord.
>>
>> Or the FSM. ;)
> 
> Lordy, that brings back memories.

Good ones? ;)

>> I wonder if you can view what's on thedailyshow.com - not sure if
>> there's a geographical restriction or not.
>>
>>
> Only clips, last time I looked.

They usually break the episode up into clips, even when they do 
interviews, often they're 2 and 3 parts (sometimes they're extended 
interviews).

>>> Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck,
>>> that's cruel, sorry.)
>>
>> LOL - I spent the entire weekend prepping (even though it's not
>> scheduled yet), installing the product (I've installed the
>> predecessors), making notes, analysing what data I can get my hands on
>> (not much).
>>
> The way to go. :-D

Yep, preparation is important.  The interview in Portland I wasn't nearly 
well enough prepared for, it seems.  I know this company inside and out - 
since I worked there before. ;)  But I know there are people who have 
been there for decades who don't know as many people there as I do, and 
that could well work to my advantage.

>> I met the hiring manager before the position was opened, and that
>> helps, because I have an idea what to expect.  I'm very familiar with
>> the company and the product's predecessors, know lots of people
>> (including at least one person he reports to - the guy who introduced
>> us) at the company who know him - so I think my chances are good.  They
>> want a degree (and prefer an MBA for the role), but I think my
>> experience and skills stand a good chance of offsetting that as a hard
>> requirement (and often while those are listed as requirements, they're
>> not a hard requirement if someone with the right mix of skills and
>> experience comes along).
>>
> Right, often HR will put it in the job spec but the hiring boss just
> wants someone who can do the job of at least learn quickly.
> 
> BTW What has Business Administration got to do with technical roles?

It's product management, so it involves market analysis and understanding 
the revenue streams and such as well as the technical sides.

I've got a former coworker who's got the same title this position has, 
and he's only got a high school diploma and a similar career path to what 
I have (but without the IT background, he started in product support 
IIRC).  That gives me a fair amount of hope.  Going to try to catch up 
with him on Monday to get insight from him on how he got in where he is.

>>> I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it.
>>> Maybe at the weekend.
>>
>> They seem to have become more comfortable as a team than in previous
>> series with Jack at the helm.
> 
> I thought that they had settles in fine, last season.

They had, but it's even better now. :)

>> Must remember to grab the new one tonight. :)
>>
> Good luck. I tried tonight (Wednesday) and it still hasn't been
> uploaded, here. :-(

I got it without any problems - I can send it if you like. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/11/2012 10:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:11:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> >>We fought a war with Britain over it.;)
>>> >>
>> >Quite right too..
>> >
>> >BTW who won?
> I guess that's a matter of perspective.;)
>

Yes, as Zhou Enlai said when asked about the French revolution.
"It is too soon to say."

>>> >>I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
>>> >>supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
>>> >>disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either.
>>> >>;)
>>> >>
>> >No, but old age can.:-)
> I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.:)
>

No! You are 21. Again. :-)

>> >I am a bit camera shy.
> So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.
>

So did I until I found that I preferred to be behind the Renderer. :-)

>> >Sorry, I don't get that.:-(
> Regex parsing.  I'm changing your statement from:
>
> "Only if you don't have a good accountant."
>
> to
>
> "Only if you don't have an accountant."
>
> :)
>

True, but good accountants can keep you out of jail, too.#
>>> >>Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
>>> >>around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
>>> >>that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one
>>> >>in charge.
>>> >>

So! This conversation gave me an idea for this TC-RTC. Which can be 
found and voted on at http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/ if you are a member.

>>> >>
>> >If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert.;-)
> Ooooh, I'll have to remember that.;)
>

Or "A" Rupert ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:27:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>>> >>We fought a war with Britain over it.;)
>>>> >>
>>> >Quite right too..
>>> >
>>> >BTW who won?
>> I guess that's a matter of perspective.;)
>>
> Yes, as Zhou Enlai said when asked about the French revolution.
> "It is too soon to say."

LOL

>> I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.:)
>>
> No! You are 21. Again. :-)

No, I'll take 42.  Amy calls it my "Answer Birthday". :)

>>> >I am a bit camera shy.
>> So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.
>>
> So did I until I found that I preferred to be behind the Renderer. :-)

LOL

> True, but good accountants can keep you out of jail, too.#

They can also put you in jail, just ask Al Capone. ;)

>>>> >>Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other
>>>> >>way around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but
>>>> >>one hopes that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they
>>>> >>become the one in charge.
>>>> >>
> So! This conversation gave me an idea for this TC-RTC. Which can be
> found and voted on at http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/ if you are a member.

Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the 
renderings. :)

>>> >If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert.;-)
>> Ooooh, I'll have to remember that.;)
>>
> Or "A" Rupert ;-)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:15:37 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the
> renderings. :)

Nice work, did see it in the binary group as well. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2012 8:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:15:37 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the
>> renderings. :)
>
> Nice work, did see it in the binary group as well. :)
>
Thanks, you might like the film that inspired the scene. “Oh! What a 
lovely war.”

You don’t need to be a member to look at the entries. But if you joined 
you could at least vote for them. We really need more participation or 
the site will die the death. :-(

There are less than half a dozen regular contributors (3 is less than 6 
is it not?). And I throw the odd image in now and then (odd being the 
operative word).



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/30/2012 3:45 PM, Stephen wrote:>
 > You don’t need to be a member to look at the entries. But if you joined
 > you could at least vote for them. We really need more participation or
 > the site will die the death. :-(
 >
 > There are less than half a dozen regular contributors (3 is less than 6
 > is it not?). And I throw the odd image in now and then (odd being the
 > operative word).
 >

I had totally forgotten about the TC-RTC!  If only I still had the free 
time of an undergrad I'd certainly participate.  Registering to vote is 
fortunately well within my time constraints though.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2012 5:36 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> I had totally forgotten about the TC-RTC!  If only I still had the free
> time of an undergrad I'd certainly participate.  Registering to vote is
> fortunately well within my time constraints though.

That is good to hear. My time is very limited too. The current Challenge 
ends mid December leaving a fortnight to vote. You could also vote for 
the next Challenge topic as well, what ever takes your intrest from a 
list of books.
It would be a good idea to drop Thomas deG a mention in the "TC-RTC 
Forum: Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So 
that he can look out for you.

We really need a bigger spread of votes.

-- 
Thanks
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:45:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 30/11/2012 8:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:15:37 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the
>>> renderings. :)
>>
>> Nice work, did see it in the binary group as well. :)
>>
> Thanks, you might like the film that inspired the scene. “Oh! What a
> lovely war.”
> 
> You don’t need to be a member to look at the entries. But if you joined
> you could at least vote for them. We really need more participation or
> the site will die the death. :-(
> 
> There are less than half a dozen regular contributors (3 is less than 6
> is it not?). And I throw the odd image in now and then (odd being the
> operative word).

I thought once upon a time the only way you could vote was to have 
submitted something?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:41:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So that he
> can look out for you.

Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2012 4:48 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:41:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So that he
>> can look out for you.
>
> Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.
>
So it is, thanks for the heads up, Jim.
I have emailed the web hosting service but his sites are down ATM. This 
is the first time in five years so can't complain too much.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2012 4:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I thought once upon a time the only way you could vote was to have
> submitted something?

That was the IRTC's rules. Anyone who has registered can rate the 
entries and vote for the next topic.
It is beginning to be a too exclusive club and we are just voting for 
each others entries. Besides needing more people to submit images more 
impartial judges would be a good thing too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:27:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 02/12/2012 4:48 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:41:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So that
>>> he can look out for you.
>>
>> Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.
>>
> So it is, thanks for the heads up, Jim.
> I have emailed the web hosting service but his sites are down ATM. This
> is the first time in five years so can't complain too much.

No problem, I'll keep my eyes out for when it comes back. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:35:16 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 02/12/2012 4:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought once upon a time the only way you could vote was to have
>> submitted something?
> 
> That was the IRTC's rules. Anyone who has registered can rate the
> entries and vote for the next topic.
> It is beginning to be a too exclusive club and we are just voting for
> each others entries. Besides needing more people to submit images more
> impartial judges would be a good thing too.

Ahhh, I was mixing the two up. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2012 9:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.
>>> >>
>> >So it is, thanks for the heads up, Jim.
>> >I have emailed the web hosting service but his sites are down ATM. This
>> >is the first time in five years so can't complain too much.
> No problem, I'll keep my eyes out for when it comes back.:)

Either Thomas or I will announce it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2012 9:41 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 9:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> >>Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.
>>>> >>
>>> >So it is, thanks for the heads up, Jim.
>>> >I have emailed the web hosting service but his sites are down ATM. This
>>> >is the first time in five years so can't complain too much.
>> No problem, I'll keep my eyes out for when it comes back.:)
>
> Either Thomas or I will announce it.
>

Announced!

The site is back up

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:34:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Announced!
> 
> The site is back up

Great. :)

I'll have a look this evening when I get home. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message