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