Access to walking areas - Page 5

"KRO" <KRO@anon.com> wrote in message
news:c3fum2$d99$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Bernie Hughes" <berniehughes@bevy.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:BJI6c.24850$F.8688@news-
> binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:5da3666f.0403190638.20a0605@posting.google.com...
> > > BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject
> > > of concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t
> > > stirring seems to come from people who belong to the
> > > walking fraternity. Where should I raise the subject
> > > IYO? alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?
> >
> > We don't care where you raise it, as long as it's
> > somewhere else. It's a private feud between yourself &
> > the RA. Take it up with them, stop
> bothering
> > urw with loud-mouthed & opinionated non-walking crap.
> >
> > You're not doing your own side of the argument any good
> > by the way. I'd
no
> > opinion whatsoever on 4x4s till I read a few of your
> > apocalyptic posts.
> Now
> > I despise them. Myself & KRO have argued about
> > practically every
subject
> > that's come up on this newsgroup, but even we agree on
> > this! So back
under
> > the bridge for you.
>
> Bernard! You can be so sweet at times :-)

Indeed. I'm in a new Goodwill to all Men phase, mainly as a
result of receiving the new Graham Tops booklet from TAC
through the post.

Cordially yours,
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

"Paul Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mu6o50pospujbkj90lopkqbuobuv7r5raa@4ax.com...
>
> That's OK then. It's their being worn as garments that I
> object to! Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?
>

It's recommended by Poucher.

"Paul Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mu6o50pospujbkj90lopkqbuobuv7r5raa@4ax.com...
It's their being worn as garments that I object to!
> Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?

I think Tom Weir is the original role model & trend setter
in this respect. Cross-referenced under Bobble Hats also.
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:26:17 +0000, Michael Farthing
<mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <4tvo50t1peee1124qdoo74db31tpqq4qoa@4ax.com>,
>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>
>>>OK. There are scientific procedures that enable us to
>>>determine the roundness of the Earth. Granted, the
>>>fundamental philosophical underpinning of the scientific
>>>method is shaky, but, for now perhaps we are able to
>>>accept its basic validity. What similar reliable
>>>mechanism can we use to determine an absolute moral
>>>value? (and I amend my original word 'decide' here in
>>>deference to your persuasive argument)
>>
>>
>>Whether there is a reliable mechanism to establish it is a
>>completely separate question from whether it exists!
>>Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
>>reliable way of determining the world's roundness. Would
>>that affect its objective validity? I think not!
>
>There is more than one point at which the absolutism
>exists. 'Right' has more than one aspect: there is the
>label itself and the abstract 'ideal'. For the label (or
>word) 'right' to be treated as an absolute it must be
>absolutely associated with the 'ideal' it is labelling
>(which ideal is henceforth capitalised). If the 'ideal'
>'RIGHT' exists absolutely but we are unable to absolutely
>associate the label to it, then the label itself is not
>absolute. That association is where the determinism becomes
>required. So if, for the sake of argument, there is an
>absolute concept of 'RIGHT' but we cannot say in any
>instance whether our label 'right' is correctly referencing
>it then the label 'right' is not referencing an absolute. A
>universe with absolutes that cannot be determined is
>isomorphic to a universe of relatives.
>

>
>>The problem (well, one of the problems) with subjectivism
>>is that it reduces our criticism of eg. (to take a
>>deliberately extreme case) Brady and Hindley's actions to
>>an expression of dislike, on a par with one's liking or
>>disliking coffee.
>
>Because something is a problem does not affect its
>veracity. It is a problem that I cannot get into Lancaster
>in the morning in less than an hour because of the traffic.
>That does not affect the truth of the assertion.
>
>I have not said that there is no general consensus over
>moral values in a large number of instances: there clearly
>is. However, this consensus is not an absolute but merely
>provides an inertial bulk of common thinking that provides
>a workable environment in which the concept can be applied.
>This is no different from many other similarly relative
>concepts. Goods have no absolute monetary value, but there
>are societal norms that make monetary value a workable
>system. Similarly, ones ability at boxing [where there are
>several absolute measures (or used to be, at any rate) :-)]
>or on a larger scale, the Time-Space continuum.
>
>>We are, if subjectivism is followed, not saying anything
>>true or false when we say he was wrong - merely that we
>>would have acted otherwise because of our preferences.
>
>We are using a shorthand that can be generally accepted,
>but in an absolute sense we are not saying anything true
>or false.
>
>Even if we accept your view that absolute right exists but
>we may not be able to determine it in all instances we are
>actually in the same quandary. Such an assertion, though
>indeed being either true or false, would not get us very
>far because we wouldn't know which of the two it was. If
>something can be absolute but not determinable it might
>just as well be relative for all the use that is.
>
>>I recommend C S Lewis's 'The Poison of Subjectivism' (he
>>was religious, but that's not essential to his position).
>>
>
>It can go in the queue - somewhere around 9871. It's quite
>an interesting discussion on the Net, but not for extended
>study. And one has to make summary decisions about what
>might be worth reading. I'm afraid Mr Lewis has long ago
>been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
>
>You say that religion is not essential to his position. The
>problem with Lewis is that his weddedness to his religion
>interferes with his judgement: indeed the very title
>suggests that he views the philosophical concept as a
>threat that must be countered rather an exploration for
>truth. However, the comment brings to the fore something I
>have not yet put forward: that any concept of the existence
>of an absolute rightness would require a philosophical
>basis as justification. That is, what I would term a
>religion. 'right' does not label a concept governed by
>physical law - it is something outside the physical
>universe. For 'RIGHT' to exist absolutely (without twisting
>its everyday meaning beyond recognition) there must be an
>absolute provider of that meaning. It requires God.

It's high time this subject drifted to cameras.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Michael Farthing" <mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:biK2OwA5+VXAFwTx@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
. For 'RIGHT' to exist absolutely (without twisting
> its everyday meaning beyond recognition) there must be an
> absolute provider of that meaning. It requires God.

I'm not sure that it does require God. It just tends to come
bundled with God for historical reasons.

As I understand it, the argument between yourself & Paul is
based on a false premise: it assumes that either there is a
fixed objective moral framework (Position 1 -Paul's view) or
that moral reasoning is a purely subjective derivation from
cultural practice (Position 2- Michael's view). This
objective/subjective dichotomy is unhelpful; it's not a
Yes/No question. There is a middle position, in which a
moral judgement derives its strength from the width of
perspective taken by the judge. The wider the perspective,
the greater coherence & more certain application of the
judgement.

This position differs from Position 1 (& agrees with
Position 2) insofar as it denies that the human mind can
ever have access to a neutral 'outside the game' position
from where an absolute inherent moral framework could be
witnessed in action; all judgements are human judgments, &
all human judgements are contextual.

It differs from Position 2 (& agrees with Position 1)
insofar as it denies that all human judgements are equally
subjective. A judgement which can be shown to depend
entirely on the interests of a given Ego will be of limited
value. As a judgement is gradually cleansed of Ego factors
it becomes of greater accuracy & value. This stripping away
of Ego factors can be thought of as a widening of
perspective. A judgement made from the valley bottom will be
limited in application & accuracy. By climbing a little
higher up the hill, a wider perspective will be achieved,
and hence a more valuable understanding reached.

Position 1 leads to the insane 'exclusive right' of Bush,
Blair, Bin Laden, Zionism, Marxism and all other varieties
of Yahweyism. Position 2 leads to the morally bankrupt greed
& stupidity of Western liberal society. Perspectivism
attempts to find a way between these twin Yes/No evils.

I agree with your rating of Lewis, much as I enjoyed his
science fiction trilogy.

A bit much for Sunday morning. I'm going back to bed.
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:13:22 +0000, david hill
<dave@davemh.demon.co.uk> wrote:

I wrote:
> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
> reliable way of determining the world's
>>roundness.

You replied:
> Oh but there is a scientific mechanism to test the earths
> roundness.

Which I believe is known technically as 'completely missing
the point'.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:08:26 +0000, Michael Farthing
<mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Goodness me! Someone else has been reading all this. I
>agree with you absolutely Bernie! (Well, relatively
>absolutely).

Of course you do - it's your position dressed up in
other clothes!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:qplwmmDAKCXAFwkJ@local.mail...
> In a recent message <c3g3rd$o0c$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

> >Actually it was none of these. It was the Open Spaces
> >Society. See:
> >http://www.oss.org.uk/responses/2004%20mar.htm
>
> Interesting site, thanks for the link. In general I agree
> with what they say, with the exception of what they say
> about you-know-what.

Look what I found http://www.noots.co.uk/members

Enjoy!! <vbg>

Cheers Andrew Kay

In a recent message <c3n68u$cc5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>> Interesting site, thanks for the link. In general I agree
>> with what they say, with the exception of what they say
>> about you-know-what.
>
>Look what I found http://www.noots.co.uk/members
>
>Enjoy!! <vbg>
[...]

Very good! I shall wear my bobble-hat with pride. The only
reason I don't wear red socks is because the Thousand Mile
Sock Company doesn't appear to make them. This is a
disgrace, they'll be hearing from me in the near future.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com

> Oh but there is a scientific mechanism to test the earths roundness.
>But as you may already know it ain't round but more of a quashed tomato.
>Fatter at the equator and leaner at the pole.
> thats why gravity at the pole is more than at the equator- well by a
>small margin. :-))))))

The earth is roughly spherical - GPS works

Richard Webb