Recently a couple of interesting things have happened in my life.

- There was a (mock) competition that aimed to locate the longest 
temporary employed scientist in the Netherlands. I won with 25 years and 
4 months so far. The runner up has a month less, we have a safe distance 
from the rest (http://platform-hnu.nl/prijsvraag/). For comparison: the 
legal maximum is 4 years.
- that result was published on the cover of a national newspaper 
(https://twitter.com/PLATFORMHNU/status/506568172695474176/photo/1
article at
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3733455/2014/09/02/Zorg-in-de-universitaire-wereld-de-wetenschapper-als-flexwerker.dhtml)

including a picture of me :( inside there was also an interview.
- This week a national magazine (Vrij Nederland) ran an article making 
the point was that public funded institutions (like universities and 
hospitals) use all sort of tricks to circumvent laws and among other 
things keep employees longer on temporary positions than legal. The 
author even invented a new verb for that sort of unethical behaviour. I 
am also a verb now \o/

So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends 
at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st. (The runner up is also 
unemployed, so (s)he is not catching up while I am down)
Being unemployed costs a lot more time than I expected, so I am just 
slowly getting more time to do new things. But I am (re)studying some 
programming languages, so that at least is fun.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 14:50, andrel wrote:
> Recently a couple of interesting things have happened in my life.
>

[Snip]

> author even invented a new verb for that sort of unethical behaviour. I
> am also a verb now \o/
>
"Careful, you might get andreled."


> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.

Did you know what the prize was when you were entered?


 >  (The runner up is also
> unemployed, so (s)he is not catching up while I am down)
> Being unemployed costs a lot more time than I expected, so I am just
> slowly getting more time to do new things. But I am (re)studying some
> programming languages, so that at least is fun.
>
>

I was made redundant from a Permanent job about 20 years ago. It was 
probably one of the better things that has happened to me, in retrospect.

And think of all the tax you pay in the Netherlands. Time to get some of 
the benefits. :-)

The other thing is having more time to spend money is costly.

My condolences these things can shock your system.
And I am sure it won't be long before you are back working again.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.09.2014 15:50, schrieb andrel:

> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.

That sucks. If you accumulated those 25 years and 4 months at a single 
employer, in Germany you would be entitled to permanent employment (or 
compensation) after just 2 years...

... which was originally designed to reduce the number of temporary 
contracts in favor of permanent ones, but in practice only leads to a 
quasi-guarantee that temporary employment contracts will /not/ be 
renewed after 2 years.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 20:11, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2014 15:50, schrieb andrel:
>
>> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
>> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.
>
> That sucks. If you accumulated those 25 years and 4 months at a single
> employer, in Germany you would be entitled to permanent employment (or
> compensation) after just 2 years...

Here it is, I think, now two contracts and 4 years. So if you have one 
year contracts 2 is max, but one can be for 3.

Technically I was not all that time with one employer, though for the 
last 9 years I was full time at the same desk with the same group of 
people. Before that mostly full time but also sometimes only part time 
in the AMC. So, I was more than 25 years doing basically the same work 
at the same place, but only the last 2 contracts and last 4 years count, 
so they are safe. (losing a lot of knowledge and experience, but who 
cares). If this had been a private company, it would be illegal as well.

> ... which was originally designed to reduce the number of temporary
> contracts in favor of permanent ones, but in practice only leads to a
> quasi-guarantee that temporary employment contracts will /not/ be
> renewed after 2 years.

In science we often need longer times. First as a PhD student (which is 
a job here) then as a post-doc. Sometimes post-doc's still need to 
finish things after a project so there is a need for extending temporary 
contracts. Problems start to arise when the post-doc, besides her 
project, has to take on structural tasks to keep the department running.
We are all aware that the system is broken, but nobody is take serious 
action. They just let the lawyers think up a way to circumvent the law 
for a couple of years. And when that is forbidden, try something else.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 17:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 14:50, andrel wrote:
>> Recently a couple of interesting things have happened in my life.
>>
>
> [Snip]
>
>> author even invented a new verb for that sort of unethical behaviour. I
>> am also a verb now \o/
>>
> "Careful, you might get andreled."

I was actually 'linnenbanked'. (the verb is from my last name, my 
official first name is too common. If the journalist had know that I 
normally use andrel he might have gone for that.

>> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
>> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.
>
> Did you know what the prize was when you were entered?

Yes. There will be a party/symposium to draw attention to the situation 
later this year. The price was that someone is going to pick me up to go 
there. (no money, no cup, not even a contract will be awarded) National 
coverage was not foreseen, but a nice bonus.

>
>  >  (The runner up is also
>> unemployed, so (s)he is not catching up while I am down)
>> Being unemployed costs a lot more time than I expected, so I am just
>> slowly getting more time to do new things. But I am (re)studying some
>> programming languages, so that at least is fun.
>>
>>
>
> I was made redundant from a Permanent job about 20 years ago.

Yes, I have been longer temporary than many people in permanent positions.

> It was
> probably one of the better things that has happened to me, in retrospect.

I am hoping it will be for me too.

> And think of all the tax you pay in the Netherlands. Time to get some of
> the benefits. :-)
>
> The other thing is having more time to spend money is costly.

I try to hide in my room at home during office hours, so that is not a 
problem yet.

>
> My condolences these things can shock your system.
> And I am sure it won't be long before you are back working again.
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> - This week a national magazine (Vrij Nederland) ran an article making 
> the point was that public funded institutions (like universities and 
> hospitals) use all sort of tricks to circumvent laws and among other 
> things keep employees longer on temporary positions than legal.

I have noticed something similar here in Finland.

Finnish law has quite strict statutes protecting employees. Firstly,
you can't just fire an employee for no reason; the reason for firing
someone must be justified. (This means in practice that if someone
gets fired without good reason, they have a legal standing to sue
the employer.)

Secondly, even with a good and acceptable reason the employer must
give a notification to the employee three months in advance. (In
other words, unless the firm goes outright bankcrupt overnight or
there are other catastrophic reasons that the company cannot keep
paying an employee, they have to keep the employee for three more
months.) It's just not possible for an employer to go to an employee
and tell them "no need to come back tomorrow, you're fired" just like
that.

But of course many companies have found a way around both problems.
You see, rather than making permanent employment contracts, they make
extremely short temporary contracts that they just renew over and over
again for as long as the employee is hired. These temporary contracts
are typically for periods of three to even just one month.

You see, you can't fire somebody without good reason. However, there's
no law that forces an employer to renew a temporary contract. This means
that if the employer just wants to fire someone, they simply stop
renewing. They only have to keep paying the salary for the remaining
of the current contract (which is often much less than 3 months.)

There *is* a law that somewhat handles this, that says something along
the lines that temporary contracts can only be renewed a certain number
of times before the employee must be contracted on a permanent basis,
but seemingly this is hard to enforce and nobody does. (One would
think that labor unions would be all over this, but apparently not.
Although I suppose it depends on the labor union. Some are much, much
stronger than others.)

I have heard of people being employed for *years* with constantly-renewed
three-month and even two-month contracts, even though this ought to be
a legally questionable thing to do.

(At least these employees get all the same legal benefits as those who
have a permanent contract, eg. in terms of holydays and legal protection.
However, they have to live in constant fear that their employer one day
decides not to renew.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 20:29, andrel wrote:
>>> So far the fun part. Temporary inherently implies that the contract ends
>>> at some point. I am unemployed since Aug 1st.
>>
>> Did you know what the prize was when you were entered?
>
> Yes. There will be a party/symposium to draw attention to the situation
> later this year. The price was that someone is going to pick me up to go
> there. (no money, no cup, not even a contract will be awarded) National
> coverage was not foreseen, but a nice bonus.

I do hope that you and the runner up tell the press and they kick up a 
fuss.

National Press Headline.

*Unlinnenbank Linnenbank*

As an aside. When I translated the article on the web. I got a Latin 
translation. Shameful I could read the Dutch one better.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Again the Monetary System and its "creative" ways to improve the profit 
of a company at the expense of employees, but some people will argue 
money isn't the source of most corruption. At least your Country is 
doing something about it, I hope it's enough noise to actually solve it.

1 more reason for me to advocate for TheVenusProject.com and The 
ZeitgeistMovement.com and similar efforts, which is simply better 
resource distribution mechanisms, as people worldwide is realizing how 
bad capitalism if for Humanity.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 0:04, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Again the Monetary System and its "creative" ways to improve the profit
> of a company at the expense of employees,

FYI I was a scientist working at an institute of the Royal Netherlands 
Academy of Arts and Sciences, not exactly a capitalistic multinational. 
The situation is a lot more subtle and complex than you suggest.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you 
were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for 
profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks 
them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save 
money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better pay?

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 21:21, andrel wrote:
> Technically I was not all that time with one employer, though for the
> last 9 years I was full time at the same desk with the same group of
> people. Before that mostly full time but also sometimes only part time
> in the AMC. So, I was more than 25 years doing basically the same work
> at the same place, but only the last 2 contracts and last 4 years count,
> so they are safe. (losing a lot of knowledge and experience, but who
> cares). If this had been a private company, it would be illegal as well.
>
> In science we often need longer times. First as a PhD student (which is
> a job here) then as a post-doc. Sometimes post-doc's still need to
> finish things after a project so there is a need for extending temporary
> contracts. Problems start to arise when the post-doc, besides her
> project, has to take on structural tasks to keep the department running.
> We are all aware that the system is broken, but nobody is take serious
> action. They just let the lawyers think up a way to circumvent the law
> for a couple of years. And when that is forbidden, try something else.

I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3 
years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position 
was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe 
so it was in the past? I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in 
that direction when I was employed.

What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of 
age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but 
your age, you know, your age...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
> your age, you know, your age...

It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no 
employment rights other than getting paid.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>> your age, you know, your age...
>
> It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no
> employment rights other than getting paid.
>

I think that makes a difference indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better pay?

The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care, 
education, and research (the three areas of my work).

The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees. 
That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop 
assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special 
rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that 
research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one 
finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original 
law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case 
the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my 
time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large 
group of people.

Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a 
freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money 
should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for 
specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly 
and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if 
already for years I have been warning them that they should also include 
technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do 
it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too 
much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change. 
So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble now).

Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed 
the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to 
be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That 
budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all 
universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of 
people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of 
the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less 
over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new 
people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I 
would now be a 'new hire'.

See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation 
without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the 
simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we 
hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer. 
Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear 
that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.

I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as 
overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at 
the end.

One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government 
is taking money away from the universities and giving it to 
organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and 
redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That 
direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both 
scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing 
the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is 
applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also 
used in English?).

Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this 
way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have 
the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them, 
and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is 
the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an 
impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 21:21, andrel wrote:
>> Technically I was not all that time with one employer, though for the
>> last 9 years I was full time at the same desk with the same group of
>> people. Before that mostly full time but also sometimes only part time
>> in the AMC. So, I was more than 25 years doing basically the same work
>> at the same place, but only the last 2 contracts and last 4 years count,
>> so they are safe. (losing a lot of knowledge and experience, but who
>> cares). If this had been a private company, it would be illegal as well.
>>
>> In science we often need longer times. First as a PhD student (which is
>> a job here) then as a post-doc. Sometimes post-doc's still need to
>> finish things after a project so there is a need for extending temporary
>> contracts. Problems start to arise when the post-doc, besides her
>> project, has to take on structural tasks to keep the department running.
>> We are all aware that the system is broken, but nobody is take serious
>> action. They just let the lawyers think up a way to circumvent the law
>> for a couple of years. And when that is forbidden, try something else.
>
> I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3
> years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position
> was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe
> so it was in the past?

that sort of rules are still in place. In my situation the rules 
apparently do not apply because I have switched employers (... -> KNAW 
-> AMC -> KNAW) and then counting starts anew each time. That I have 
been doing the same thing in the same group does not count. Or so they 
claim.
(BTW I published also some thoughts related to this at 
https://magazine.thepostonline.nl/#!/Een-pleidooi-voor-meer-slow-science 
which you should also be able to find via blendle.nl . ALso available 
from my website bytehouwer.nl/slowscience.pdf, but it is in Dutch. If 
there is any demand for it I will make a translation, Google makes a 
mess of it)

> I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in
> that direction when I was employed.

Are you unemployed yourself? Or just retired or switched to a different job?


> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
> your age, you know, your age...

I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have 
to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 09:01, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 9:43, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/09/2014 08:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>>> your age, you know, your age...
>>
>> It works the opposite way for me. But then I am a contractor with no
>> employment rights other than getting paid.
>>
>
> I think that makes a difference indeed.
>
>

Fortunately for me.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
>> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
>> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
>> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
>> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better pay?
>
> The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
> There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care,
> education, and research (the three areas of my work).
>
> The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees.
> That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop
> assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special
> rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that
> research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one
> finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original
> law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case
> the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my
> time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large
> group of people.
>
> Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a
> freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money
> should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for
> specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly
> and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if
> already for years I have been warning them that they should also include
> technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do
> it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too
> much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change.
> So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble
> now).
>
> Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed
> the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to
> be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That
> budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all
> universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of
> people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of
> the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less
> over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new
> people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I
> would now be a 'new hire'.

Thanks for you public service,as a citizen of the World. I understand 
your situation and it wasn't much different to the one I had in mind.

> See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation
> without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the
> simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we
> hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer.
> Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear
> that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.

Now I'll explain to you how you're wrong: you referred to capitalism 
without you even noticing it: money and budget, hire, new hire, grant, 
etc. The mechanism is rather simple, the more "over-budget", that's what 
they say, universities are the less they have to hire permanent 
personnel, more temps and more money for the universities, of course 
they have to play the victim, is the best excuse ever, they appeal to 
human compassion and charity, emotional blackmail so you don't go 
investigating their accounting books, kinda of BS probably. It is simple 
unfortunately, capitalism underlays everything and so the 1% people 
owning 95% of it worldwide. That you don't or don't want to see this, 
it's your fault. If the work was for your Gov., it should have made sure 
you get enough of everything.

> I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as
> overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at
> the end.

And here you contradict yourself, and I'm being not intelligent? and 
believe me, I care little what people think of me, like you they're more 
inclined to their own judgement of what I'm about or the ideas and 
spread or have and not what I'm and my ideas actually about, and this 
begs the question Is this because I have correct you on my previous and 
you didn't liked this? I think probably it is, doesn't it?

> One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government
> is taking money away from the universities and giving it to
> organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and
> redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That
> direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both
> scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing
> the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is
> applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also
> used in English?).

Science should have a saying about what needs to be researched, not just 
the Gov. and directing science like that it's too inquisitive IMO and 
bad for the people, since money people that manipulate your Gov, has 
control of what is researched covering up all that is inconvenient for 
them, forcing selective research so the scientist will never have the 
big picture of the wrong doings of the Industry. And since the Industry 
is being subsidized by your Gov. do they get regulated by it giving good 
prices and services? I hope so, because it'd be only fair.

The term I in English is valuation, I'm not from USA but from Bolivia, 
so the term is very similar to the Spanish 1: 
http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=valorizaci%C3%B3n

> Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this
> way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have
> the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them,
> and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is
> the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an
> impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.

That's 1 example of many I have read about

So you write this long text to someone that you qualify as impossible to 
debate with? it's a bit contradictory, don't you think?

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 10:43, andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 9:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am surprised all this was possible. I naively thought that after 3
>> years (2 years temporary contract plus extension) a permanent position
>> was mandatory, at least at governmental and university sites. Or maybe
>> so it was in the past?
>
> that sort of rules are still in place. In my situation the rules
> apparently do not apply because I have switched employers (... -> KNAW
> -> AMC -> KNAW) and then counting starts anew each time. That I have
> been doing the same thing in the same group does not count. Or so they
> claim.

Yes, that is the trick of course and often they are deliberately misused 
in that way. Not much one can do about that.

> (BTW I published also some thoughts related to this at
> https://magazine.thepostonline.nl/#!/Een-pleidooi-voor-meer-slow-science
> which you should also be able to find via blendle.nl . ALso available
> from my website bytehouwer.nl/slowscience.pdf, but it is in Dutch. If
> there is any demand for it I will make a translation, Google makes a
> mess of it)
>
>> I am not sure, I seem to remember some rules in
>> that direction when I was employed.
>
> Are you unemployed yourself? Or just retired or switched to a different
> job?

I am currently officially retired, at 68. However, I was 57 when I was 
'sacked' (I do not much like the term) together with a dozen others at 
our TNO institute because we did not generate enough external funding. 
Needless to say that that is rather difficult for an earth sciences 
research scientist. To be fair, I must say that I was treated very 
fairly, I had the backing of the syndicate, and was offered an early 
retirement under very acceptable conditions. To tell the truth, I was 
quite glad to quit working as I was beginning to have work-related 
health problems.

>
>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>> your age, you know, your age...
>
> I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have
> to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.
>

Yes, I believe that sums up the situation indeed. Americans would 
probably call this a new opportunities situation (and they are not 
wrong) but in Europe we have a different approach to this, especially 
the older generations. We always believed more in stable job continuity 
and job protection.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

The point of my long post was to explain that a government can never 
finance all the things she would want to do. At least at this moment in 
time ours can't. So yes it is all about money and no capitalism is not 
directly involved. Indirectly of course companies are lobbying but so do 
the labour organizations and the churches.
I have long passed the day when I though everything was black and white. 
One day you might do that as well.

On 24-9-2014 13:19, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 24-9-2014 2:08, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Probably, but the bottom line is the same, money, and the fact that you
>>> were not given a position in a scientific environment that's not for
>>> profit and working for the issuer of Laws, your own Government, breaks
>>> them, it's even more disappointing, the only reason I see is to save
>>> money; why you could've been hired as a freelancer maybe  for better
>>> pay?
>>
>> The bottom line is money indeed. Tax money to be precise.
>> There is a limited amount the government can spend on health care,
>> education, and research (the three areas of my work).
>>
>> The labour laws about temporary contracts are to protect the employees.
>> That is good and useful for ordinary workers in factories and shop
>> assistants, but researchers are a bit different. As there are no special
>> rules for them, people needed to find loopholes to make sure that
>> research was possible at all. The problem with holes is that once one
>> finds one, it tends to be used also for the situations that the original
>> law was actually intended for (see also my sig). I think that in my case
>> the use of loopholes was indeed illegitimate, because for a part of my
>> time I was doing things that were structural and essential for a large
>> group of people.
>>
>> Coming back to your post, why could I not be hired, e.g. as a
>> freelancer. Well they could, the problem is money again. The money
>> should come from grants. Only those are in general to ask for money for
>> specific equipment and personal. So they should have included me (partly
>> and for many project) in the grant proposal. Which they didn't, even if
>> already for years I have been warning them that they should also include
>> technical and data analysis support in their grant. Why they did not do
>> it? because it would diminish the change of getting the grant at all too
>> much. Yet another situation where there is a mismatch in pace of change.
>> So that more or less rules out the freelancer (and they are in trouble
>> now).
>>
>> Why can I not get a fixed position at the place I was working? Indeed
>> the most logical and clean option. Problem is money again. That has to
>> be paid from the money the university gets from the government. That
>> budget has been shrinking over the last years, which means that all
>> universities are over budget, because most money was for salaries of
>> people with fixed positions and they could not be fired at the time of
>> the budget cuts. So if someone leaves, that means the university is less
>> over budget, and that person can not be replaced, and certainly no new
>> people can be hired. I was working on an externally financed project, I
>> would now be a 'new hire'.
>
> Thanks for you public service,as a citizen of the World. I understand
> your situation and it wasn't much different to the one I had in mind.
>
>> See, you can simply (well, not really simple) explain the situation
>> without having to refer to capitalism once. I therefore object to the
>> simplistic world view as you express it time and time again. And if we
>> hadn't had an interaction elsewhere I would not have bothered to answer.
>> Not because it is not a valid point, but from the wording it seems clear
>> that an intelligent debate with you is impossible.
>
> Now I'll explain to you how you're wrong: you referred to capitalism
> without you even noticing it: money and budget, hire, new hire, grant,
> etc. The mechanism is rather simple, the more "over-budget", that's what
> they say, universities are the less they have to hire permanent
> personnel, more temps and more money for the universities, of course
> they have to play the victim, is the best excuse ever, they appeal to
> human compassion and charity, emotional blackmail so you don't go
> investigating their accounting books, kinda of BS probably. It is simple
> unfortunately, capitalism underlays everything and so the 1% people
> owning 95% of it worldwide. That you don't or don't want to see this,
> it's your fault. If the work was for your Gov., it should have made sure
> you get enough of everything.
>
>> I give you that there is actually some clear capitalism involved, not as
>> overt as you imply, but still. Keep reading, there will be something at
>> the end.
>
> And here you contradict yourself, and I'm being not intelligent? and
> believe me, I care little what people think of me, like you they're more
> inclined to their own judgement of what I'm about or the ideas and
> spread or have and not what I'm and my ideas actually about, and this
> begs the question Is this because I have correct you on my previous and
> you didn't liked this? I think probably it is, doesn't it?
>
>> One of the reasons that the budget is shrinking is that the government
>> is taking money away from the universities and giving it to
>> organizations that hand out grants. It is converted into soft money and
>> redistributed as a way to influence the direction of science. That
>> direction is of course according to the latest hypes. Both
>> scientifically (meaning that there will be more money for people doing
>> the same thing as everybody else) and directed at research that is
>> applicable by the industry (is the horrible term 'valorisation' also
>> used in English?).
>
> Science should have a saying about what needs to be researched, not just
> the Gov. and directing science like that it's too inquisitive IMO and
> bad for the people, since money people that manipulate your Gov, has
> control of what is researched covering up all that is inconvenient for
> them, forcing selective research so the scientist will never have the
> big picture of the wrong doings of the Industry. And since the Industry
> is being subsidized by your Gov. do they get regulated by it giving good
> prices and services? I hope so, because it'd be only fair.
>
> The term I in English is valuation, I'm not from USA but from Bolivia,
> so the term is very similar to the Spanish 1:
> http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=valorizaci%C3%B3n
>
>> Some of the bigger industries have lobbied to redirect money in this
>> way, hoping they could outsource their R&D to the universities and have
>> the government pay for it. Sadly it did not work out so easy for them,
>> and only the foundations of the universities were damaged. But that is
>> the only way short sighted unethical capitalistic behaviour has had an
>> impact on why I am unemployed at the moment.
>
> That's 1 example of many I have read about
>
> So you write this long text to someone that you qualify as impossible to
> debate with? it's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

And you jump to conclusion again, I never wrote it was black and white, 
it's all a infinite amount of shades of corruption, depending the risk 
and how dirty you want to get, the idea that you have of what your Gov. 
can or can't do it a notion, for sure not the truth, unless you have 
seen the accounting books and how everything is spent in detail, they 
won't allow that ever, as long as the 1% has your Gov. in their pay 
role, that's the effect that we see around the World, hence evidence 
that my idea, shared my millions if not billions, it's not probably far 
away from the truth.

Post a reply to this message

You fool yourself thinking there isn't any capitalism involved, even 
socialist Countries are capitalist, because the monetary system they run 
under it is based in profit making, but in the end that pulls harder 
than anything unless people actually get what they expect from a living 
they will go with the profit making and whatever practice they need to 
get into to get the money the want, unless you don't want to go to 
prison or get dirty, the latter not common.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 12:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 10:43, andrel wrote:

>> I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have
>> to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.
>>
>

Being a freelancer is not too bad if you can find the work and don't 
mind travelling. Having the language skills you do opens lots of doors.

I really sympathise if you have to go into management. I miss working 
with my hands and for years I travelled with a small toolkit in case I 
had to fix something. :-)

> Yes, I believe that sums up the situation indeed. Americans would
> probably call this a new opportunities situation (and they are not
> wrong) but in Europe we have a different approach to this, especially
> the older generations. We always believed more in stable job continuity
> and job protection.
>

That is mainland Europe. In Britain it has been like that for decades. 
And we are worse off for it.
No wonder the Iraqis called America and Britain, Satan and little Satan 
one follows the other.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I am not fooling myself and I never said there was no capitalism 
involved. I said that the issue was how a government can spend tax 
money. That has some intervention by market forces (here probably less 
than in your country) but that is irrelevant. The point simply is that 
no matter for what reason the amount of money is still finite.
I am a victim of mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians not 
of a capitalist intervention. Believe me, I do know my country much 
better than you do.
Please stop trying to force a complex situation in your limited 
framework, it really is annoying.


On 24-9-2014 14:34, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You fool yourself thinking there isn't any capitalism involved, even
> socialist Countries are capitalist, because the monetary system they run
> under it is based in profit making, but in the end that pulls harder
> than anything unless people actually get what they expect from a living
> they will go with the profit making and whatever practice they need to
> get into to get the money the want, unless you don't want to go to
> prison or get dirty, the latter not common.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 14:39, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 12:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 24-9-2014 10:43, andrel wrote:
>
>>> I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have
>>> to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.
>>>
>>
>
> Being a freelancer is not too bad if you can find the work and don't
> mind travelling.

I am trying to find jobs as freelancer indeed. I do hate travelling, but 
if I have to I do not complain.

> Having the language skills you do opens lots of doors.

I do speak Dutch and English, I understand German but always get the 
genders wrong. French is not so good, my Spanish worse, but improving. 
Then I do speak C, Matlab, and a bit of Java, Python, Javascript and I 
used to be able program in e.g. Fortran and Prolog. Then there are the 
classical languages Latin and various assembly languages.
Of course I know a bit about functional languages, although I never used 
them. And I can explain why the guarded commands language of Dijkstra 
has a fundamental design flaw and why my version is better ;)

> I really sympathise if you have to go into management. I miss working
> with my hands and for years I travelled with a small toolkit in case I
> had to fix something. :-)

yes, that is what I fear most. I got into this business originally 
because I wanted to make things. Such a pity that one might have to give 
that up. Incidentally my desire to keep building things was one of the 
reasons why I accepted these temporary positions, otherwise I would have 
gone the way of the devil much earlier.

>
>> Yes, I believe that sums up the situation indeed. Americans would
>> probably call this a new opportunities situation (and they are not
>> wrong) but in Europe we have a different approach to this, especially
>> the older generations. We always believed more in stable job continuity
>> and job protection.
>>
>
> That is mainland Europe. In Britain it has been like that for decades.
> And we are worse off for it.
> No wonder the Iraqis called America and Britain, Satan and little Satan
> one follows the other.





-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 13:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 10:43, andrel wrote:
>> On 24-9-2014 9:31, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>> What makes me angry is that nowadays getting a job is more a question of
>>> age than of skills. +40? I am sorry my dear sir. You are an expert but
>>> your age, you know, your age...
>>
>> I am 50+. Which indeed means that I have to become a freelancer or have
>> to find a job in management and not be productive myself anymore.
>>
>
> Yes, I believe that sums up the situation indeed. Americans would
> probably call this a new opportunities situation (and they are not
> wrong) but in Europe we have a different approach to this, especially
> the older generations. We always believed more in stable job continuity
> and job protection.

My Dutch article is sort of about the Americanization of Dutch research. 
We are also getting more and more opportunistic short term research here.
For me an important factor is that I believe in good research in a 
stable group with a long experience. Stable jobs are just what makes 
long term cooperation possible.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 13:59, andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 14:39, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> Being a freelancer is not too bad if you can find the work and don't
>> mind travelling.
>
> I am trying to find jobs as freelancer indeed. I do hate travelling, but
> if I have to I do not complain.
>

Best of luck with it. Getting the first one is the hardest.

>> Having the language skills you do opens lots of doors.
>
> I do speak Dutch and English, I understand German but always get the
> genders wrong.

I keep forgetting which words are Scottish and not used by the English, 
myself.

> French is not so good, my Spanish worse, but improving.
> Then I do speak C, Matlab, and a bit of Java, Python, Javascript and I
> used to be able program in e.g. Fortran and Prolog. Then there are the
> classical languages Latin and various assembly languages.

LOL



>> I really sympathise if you have to go into management. I miss working
>> with my hands and for years I travelled with a small toolkit in case I
>> had to fix something. :-)
>
> yes, that is what I fear most. I got into this business originally
> because I wanted to make things. Such a pity that one might have to give
> that up. Incidentally my desire to keep building things was one of the
> reasons why I accepted these temporary positions, otherwise I would have
> gone the way of the devil much earlier.
>

Nothing I can say here except I hope you get your hearts desire and it 
all works out for you.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 15:17, andrel wrote:
> My Dutch article is sort of about the Americanization of Dutch research.
> We are also getting more and more opportunistic short term research here.
> For me an important factor is that I believe in good research in a
> stable group with a long experience. Stable jobs are just what makes
> long term cooperation possible.

Exactly my thoughts.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing 
about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the 
"mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably 
done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually 
happens, you haven't at the seems investigated that far. My frame work 
is limited but probably I'm thinking ahead of you on this.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 09:47, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing
> about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the
> "mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably
> done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually
> happens, you haven't at the seems investigated that far. My frame work
> is limited but probably I'm thinking ahead of you on this.

In principle if what I think you mean is right. I agree with you.
Are you talking about the class war/struggle?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> But of course many companies have found a way around both problems.
> You see, rather than making permanent employment contracts, they make
> extremely short temporary contracts that they just renew over and over
> again for as long as the employee is hired. These temporary contracts
> are typically for periods of three to even just one month.

In the UK retail industry having contracts that are for a low or even 
zero number of hours are very common. The employer is then legally 
allowed to give you 40 hours of work every week for 6 months and then 
nothing (or only 4 hours or something).

> You see, you can't fire somebody without good reason.

The problem is (in the UK at least) that "they are not very good at 
their job and we want to replace them with someone better" is not a 
"good reason" in the eyes of the law.

> (At least these employees get all the same legal benefits as those who
> have a permanent contract, eg. in terms of holydays and legal protection.
> However, they have to live in constant fear that their employer one day
> decides not to renew.)

Typically here though for professional temporary workers they get paid 
significantly more (sometimes even double) than permanent staff. So if 
you can get yourself a "temporary" contract that an employer repeatedly 
renews you are on to a real winner. The fact that you might then be 
unemployed for 6 months after a few years work is more than offset by 
the increased salary you got during that time.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 10:47, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing
> about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the
> "mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably
> done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually
> happens, you haven't at the seems investigated that far. My frame work
> is limited but probably I'm thinking ahead of you on this.

I do know my country better than you. And you still fail to miss the 
real point by being totally blinded by your misconception that you 
understand the world. Go back and read what I wrote and come back if you 
have anything interesting and new to add.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 10:47, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing
> about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the
> "mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably
> done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually
> happens,

Never presume malevolence when simple stupidity suffices.

I suppose at least 90% of the people with power don't /deliberately/ 
create a bad world - they just don't know the system they operate in 
well enough to control (rather than being controlled by) it.

Or, to put it in other words: The problem is not corrupt people in 
powerful positions - the problem is that the power the people in 
presumingly powerful positions have is dwindling day by day, as those 
positions are becoming more and more controlled by the system itself.


So, in some sense, modern democracy is worse than an absolutistic 
monarchy: In the latter, if things go wrong you know who's ultimately 
responsible for it.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 25-9-2014 10:47, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing
>> about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the
>> "mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably
>> done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually
>> happens, you haven't at the seems investigated that far. My frame work
>> is limited but probably I'm thinking ahead of you on this.
>
> I do know my country better than you. And you still fail to miss the
> real point by being totally blinded by your misconception that you
> understand the world. Go back and read what I wrote and come back if you
> have anything interesting and new to add.
>
No, you re simply wrong, the Rothschild manage most of the economies in 
the EU, again, you think you know your Country, but keep that stubborn 
misconception.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 13:04, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> No, you re simply wrong, the Rothschild manage most of the economies in
> the EU, again, you think you know your Country, but keep that stubborn
> misconception.

LOL

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Not quite, there is an elite of money people that control the most of 
the economies of the World, and this is no theory this is unfortunately 
true, the depressions in USA, the World Wars, Vietnam, etc were and are 
all business to siphon money from the middle and lower classes. 
Therefore the need to change to a better type of economy and so my 
suggestions about it I made.

Post a reply to this message

Stupidity alone? Might be, but 'the powers to be' are in everything 
probably.

As you mention probably there is a gradual concentration of power back 
to monarchy styles, and that monarchy is in turn being bought by money 
people, or the 1%, I have learned that his is how the World is being 
managed, Govs. are puppets and scape goats.

Everything is bribery probably, why politicians won't self themselves 
when they have power and not money (capitalism wins over ethics and 
politics), if they don't, and if they do they can always get a little 
more, the reason why 'The Revolving Door': Corportocracy <--> Gov. flow 
of people in USA but I'm pretty sure 'The Powers to Be' have managed to 
do something similar in EU and other parts of the world.

That's why we need a economic system that it's not that selfish but the 
contrary, a better way to share rationally what we have *worldwide* this 
way each region will contribute with natural resources to the World and 
Humanity will work for a Common Well-Being and will promote such 
behavior as capitalism promotes the opposite.

That's why I made my suggestions to those websites, they have a good 
alternative: Natural-Law Resource-Based Economy.

That was my argument, nothing more.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 12:04, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 25-9-2014 10:47, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> I disagree that you know your economy better than I do, I'm not writing
>>> about your Country. And here is why: Who benefits from the
>>> "mismanagement and lack of foresight by politicians"? that's probably
>>> done on purpose to suck up money for some rich guy as it usually
>>> happens, you haven't at the seems investigated that far. My frame work
>>> is limited but probably I'm thinking ahead of you on this.
>>
>> I do know my country better than you. And you still fail to miss the
>> real point by being totally blinded by your misconception that you
>> understand the world. Go back and read what I wrote and come back if you
>> have anything interesting and new to add.
>>
> No, you re simply wrong, the Rothschild manage most of the economies in
> the EU, again, you think you know your Country, but keep that stubborn
> misconception.


Saul, this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory.
You know that particularly ugly one about the Jews that Hitler* used.
I am sure that is not what you are saying but it could be read that way.

In principle there is some truth there. In my home country, Scotland. We 
had a theatre company called The 7:84 company. The name refers to the 
fact that 84% of Scotland was owned by 7% of the people.

* It wasn't just Hitler. It was going around in Britain hundreds of 
years before that. But that is the point of reference that is normally used.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, that Jews wanted to take over Germany and the World eventually. 
The problem isn't the Rothschilds having lots of money, is the way they 
use it.

I know it sounds that way, but there isn't only this documentary 'The 
Mmoney Masters' in YouTube, 1 that Matt Damon, The Smarterst Guys in the 
Room documentary in YT and the book, Pound Foolish book and many people 
that has diagnosed the same behavior, many of which I have watched on 
The Daily Show, and it's not only in USA but worldwide on each region 
their own way, so the amount of evidence of social injustice converge at 
that point, applying simply reasoning like the one in the graphic, the 
experience is from authority, I know but those people looks like they're 
not fakes, specially when they have a lot to lose and they're not going 
to be liked by The Powers to Be, and instead expose their malpractices.

These are writers, people that research mostly silently for years and 
make a book like a Thesis, so it is not something that you'll see in the 
news probably, so if you don't get interested in social justice and 
shows/people that will bring such 
articles/interviews/documentaries/shows to share the info you'll 
probably think, I'm a gullible conspiracy theorist.

Also knowing a bit of Darwinian behavior, the monetary system is such, 
and because of it works well for the 1% some of those people support the 
Evolution and the Darwinian way of doing business and justify capitalism.

Intelligent people will do a lot more damage to their own society than 
less evolved beings following a Darwinian behavior, therefore the need 
to change.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '10450869_725819830800154_7632242417988409272_n.png' (107 KB)

Preview of image '10450869_725819830800154_7632242417988409272_n.png'

On 26/09/14 14:19, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> The problem isn't the Rothschilds having lots of money, is the way they
> use it.
> 

Actually, the Rothschilds have very little money. Only three of them
make it into Forbes Billionaires List; the highest placed one is
somewhere around #850 and the newest arrival is (I believe) a Facebook
investor. So you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to blame. Try
Bill Gates, he's #2

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, because that magazine is not controlled by the 1%

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 15:19, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> These are writers, people that research mostly silently for years and
> make a book like a Thesis, so it is not something that you'll see in the
> news probably, so if you don't get interested in social justice and
> shows/people that will bring such
> articles/interviews/documentaries/shows to share the info you'll
> probably think, I'm a gullible conspiracy theorist.

Well, I guess I have to concede that you're right: There /is/ a 
conspiracy going on.

It is a conspiracy of book authors to fool us into thinking that there 
is a conspiracy going on in the world, for the sake of better selling 
their books.


I'm not saying the books don't have a point. But I wouldn't believe 100% 
of what's written in those books. 10% maybe.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 14:19, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yeah, that Jews wanted to take over Germany and the World eventually.
> The problem isn't the Rothschilds having lots of money, is the way they
> use it.


Okay I agree with that.
But when conspiracy raised its ugly head. I make my excuses and leave. 
(News of the World RIP)

I must say that I have not had so much fun, with my clothes on. For Aeons.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:04, clipka wrote:
> I'm not saying the books don't have a point. But I wouldn't believe 100%
> of what's written in those books. 10% maybe.


But it is in black and white. It must be true.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 19:05, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 17:04, clipka wrote:
>> I'm not saying the books don't have a point. But I wouldn't believe 100%
>> of what's written in those books. 10% maybe.
>
> But it is in black and white. It must be true.

Interesting thought, indeed: Why should we expect anything else from 
books than a black-and-white view of the world. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 18:54, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 19:05, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/09/2014 17:04, clipka wrote:
>>> I'm not saying the books don't have a point. But I wouldn't believe 100%
>>> of what's written in those books. 10% maybe.
>>
>> But it is in black and white. It must be true.
>
> Interesting thought, indeed: Why should we expect anything else from
> books than a black-and-white view of the world. ;-)
>

Because that is what "literature" is all about. Can't you just taste 
that madeleine when you drink your tea.
(That should prove to my wife that I do listen. Proust! You couldn't 
make him up.)

Seriously, It was an old fashioned retort to people who believe 
everything in books. Probably long forgotten by everyone except Dr. John.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 19:24, Stephen wrote:
> 
> Seriously, It was an old fashioned retort to people who believe
> everything in books. Probably long forgotten by everyone except Dr. John.
> 

Sorry, mate, at my age the memory's not as good as it used to be :-)

John (I think, or was it Fred)
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 19:44, Doctor John wrote:
> On 26/09/14 19:24, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Seriously, It was an old fashioned retort to people who believe
>> everything in books. Probably long forgotten by everyone except Dr. John.
>>
>
My hearing's gone. What did you say?


> Sorry, mate, at my age the memory's not as good as it used to be :-)
>
> John (I think, or was it Fred)
>


<Sings>

Was it Bill or was it Ben?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 19:58, Stephen wrote:
> 
> 
> <Sings>
> 
> Was it Bill or was it Ben?
> 

Nurse! Stephen spat out his Dried Frog pill again

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 21:09, schrieb Doctor John:
> On 26/09/14 19:58, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>> <Sings>
>>
>> Was it Bill or was it Ben?
>
> Nurse! Stephen spat out his Dried Frog pill again

They should make a comedy show of you! :-)

(Or was that you, the two old fellows on the balcony in the Muppet Show? 
:-P)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 20:43, clipka wrote:
> 
> They should make a comedy show of you! :-)
> 

Now there's an idea. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to remember my
lines and Stephen wouldn't hear his cues.

> (Or was that you, the two old fellows on the balcony in the Muppet Show?
> :-P)
> 

Nah! One was my father and the other was my mother's husband

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message