Cycling on Eigg

David Damerell said:

The troll was wrong because it was a troll; not because it had rude words in

I find that I am really struggling to care enough to argue the toss about it :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

In message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. All kinds of people use vigorous language on Usenet, and Usenet has always been a medium
for adults - children can read it, but I strongly oppose the idea that we should adapt it for them
except in hierarchies and newsgroups explicitly for their use.

Do you support the use of 'vigorous language' (by which I suppose you mean swearing) on Usenet? I
haven't noticed you practising its use much yourself.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. All kinds of people use vigorous language on Usenet, and Usenet has always been a medium
for adults - children can read it, but I strongly oppose the idea that we should adapt it for them
except in hierarchies and newsgroups explicitly for their use.

Do you support the use of 'vigorous language' (by which I suppose you mean swearing) on Usenet?

Yes, absolutely. I am aware that some regular posters in some groups I read are very valuable and
interesting potty-mouths.

Quoted message said:

I haven't noticed you practising its use much yourself.

I've mellowed in the past few years; but I'd like to think I can if I feel like it without getting
"for the sake of the children" rammed down my throat.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. All kinds of people use vigorous language on Usenet, and Usenet has always been a
medium for adults - children can read it, but I strongly oppose the idea that we should adapt it
for them except in hierarchies and newsgroups explicitly for their use.

Do you support the use of 'vigorous language' (by which I suppose you mean swearing) on Usenet?

Yes, absolutely. I am aware that some regular posters in some groups I read are very valuable and
interesting potty-mouths.

Quoted message said:

I haven't noticed you practising its use much yourself.

I've mellowed in the past few years; but I'd like to think I can if I feel like it without getting
"for the sake of the children" rammed down my throat.

So in any public area where children are likely to be present you reserve the right to use swear
words. Are you a parent? Do you have relations or friends who have children? Have you ever been on a
bus and heard your young child being subjected to foul language? I repeat. This Newsgroup is not an
Adult Only Newsgroup.

Vision

positivethoughts said:

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I've mellowed in the past few years; but I'd like to think I can if I feel like it without getting
"for the sake of the children" rammed down my throat.

So in any public area where children are likely to be present you reserve the right to use
swear words.

I didn't say that, did I?

I reserve the right to use profanity on Usenet, because it's fine for adults, and I refuse to
inconvenience adults for the sake of children. I really don't care what you think about this,
because there's nothing you can do to stop me.

[Incidentally, I suspect you're living in a fantasy universe if you suppose that children don't most
often hear foul language coming from the mouths of other children.]
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

David Damerell wrote: <snips>

Quoted message said:

I reserve the right to use profanity on Usenet, because it's fine for adults, and I refuse to
inconvenience adults for the sake of children.

<snips>

How is not using profanity "inconveniencing" adults?

Andrew
--
Andrew Wells Replace nospam with my first name to reach me

In message <[email hidden]>, Andrew Wells
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

David Damerell wrote: <snips>

Quoted message said:

I reserve the right to use profanity on Usenet, because it's fine for adults, and I refuse to
inconvenience adults for the sake of children.

<snips>

How is not using profanity "inconveniencing" adults?

Andrew
--
Andrew Wells Replace nospam with my first name to reach me

I suppose it's the inconvenience of having to think of a word other than a profanity. Big
inconvenience for some, evidently. :-)
--
Michael MacClancy

Kids at my local primary school, in a small country town teach each other to swear, they also learn
to be racist, ie intolerant of anyone who in the slightest appears different. They get filled with
all sorts of totally incorrect attitudes. I would love to be able to teach my kids at home, however
work patterns do not allow that. Meanwhile we have to spend time trying to correct the attitudes
gained from the playground. Swearing by the kids is in fact the least worrying.

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.
--
Gary

T.V.'s to blame !

"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kids at my local primary school, in a small country town teach each other to swear, they also
learn to be racist, ie intolerant of anyone who in the slightest appears different. They get
filled with all sorts of totally incorrect attitudes. I would love to be able to teach my kids at
home, however work patterns do not allow that. Meanwhile we have to spend time trying to correct
the attitudes gained from the playground. Swearing by the kids is in fact the least worrying.

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.
--
Gary

Gary <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.

what the **** brought this tirade on??

-Luigi

In message <[email hidden]>, Gary <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.

But that isn't the same as you (or anyone else) supporting the use of profanities on Usenet.
--
Michael MacClancy

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Gary <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.

But that isn't the same as you (or anyone else) supporting the use of profanities on Usenet.

Not at all, he just accepts it as a fact of life.

--
Steve Barlow

In message <[email hidden]>, Steve Barlow
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Gary <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I do not consider usenet to blame for promulgating the use of profanities.

But that isn't the same as you (or anyone else) supporting the use of profanities on Usenet.

Not at all, he just accepts it as a fact of life.

Does he? How do you know this?
--
Michael MacClancy

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

positivethoughts said:

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I've mellowed in the past few years; but I'd like to think I can if I

feel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like it without getting "for the sake of the children" rammed down my throat.

So in any public area where children are likely to be present you reserve the right to use
swear words.

I didn't say that, did I?

I reserve the right to use profanity on Usenet, because it's fine for adults, and I refuse to
inconvenience adults for the sake of children. I really don't care what you think about this,
because there's nothing you can do to stop me.

[Incidentally, I suspect you're living in a fantasy universe if you suppose that children don't
most often hear foul language coming from the mouths of other children.]
--

If a child learns a swear word from another child then where does that other child learn the swear
word from. From another child, from an adult.

Why use swear words? Do you have difficulty in expressing yourself otherwise?

Give me a sentence with a swear word and I'll give you a perfectly good alternative without.

Vision

Quoted message said:

David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

positivethoughts said:

Why use swear words?

Because it's:

o big, and o clever, and o hard

obv. Like smoking.

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

positivethoughts said:

If a child learns a swear word from another child then where does that other child learn the swear
word from. From another child, from an adult.

Why use swear words? Do you have difficulty in expressing yourself otherwise?

Hi Vision

This reminds me of what my prep-school headmaster said to me when I was "caught" saying damn, bloody
or some other such mild expletive. He said in his most stern and condecending tone that "only people
with a limited vocabularly have the need to swear". *******, albeit a correct *******.

IMO, those who swear all the time fall into my old headmaster's category. However, if someone who
doesn't regularly swear suddenly comes out with a mouthful of expletives, well, it certainly make an
impression.

James

--
It's a CD-ROM drive, not a cup holder.

James Hodson said:

if someone who doesn't regularly swear suddenly comes out with a mouthful of expletives, well, it
certainly make an impression.

<maunder type="offtopic"> Way back when, my dad had a friend and colleague called Mike Chrisp.
Anybody who reads Model Engineer magazine, yes, that Mike Chrisp. Mike is a gentle soul, a genuinely
nice man, builder of miniature steam locomotives (requiring the patience of Job) and brews first
class beer as well.

Dad and Mike were both lecturers, engineers, and professional men - they were also of an age where
one did not use "workshop language" except in extremis. Or, of course, the workshop. And then only
to mechanical objects.

Mike had a lab technician, let's call him John. Dad caught John giving Mike a load of verbal one
day, and Mike was visibly upset. So Dad, who at the time was 6'2" tall and powerfully built, took
John to one side for a quiet word. As I recall it went something along these lines:

"John, the fact that you are comletely useless is between you and your employers. But I just want
you to know that if you're rude to Mike again I shall F***ING KILL YOU. This is purely personal, you
understand. Got that?" All delivered in an absolutely level tone, with a completely straight face,
from a distance of about 1 1/2"

John resigned shortly thereafter :-)

Oh, Dad's still in one piece by the way but strokes etc. have rendered him shorter and less imposing
than once he was. Still mad as a brush, though, if anyone here was ever at St Albans College and
remembers him. Curse of my formative years, that: went to Southampton Uni to escape it, first day in
the OTC and a bloke walks up and says "Chapman, ah! Know yer father!" and walks off... </maunder>

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:32:06 +0100, contributor Dave P had scribed:

Quoted message said:

Is it worth taking mountain bikes over to Eigg? I ask as out youngest is only just in a bike seat
and I think rough land rover tracks maybe too much for her.

Any thoughts?

Wait for the new ferry terminal to be completed first otherwise the hassle of getting bikes there
outweighs enjoyment of the trip.

If you are taking the 'big ferry' from Mallaig at the moment it is necessary to use the Eigg shuttle
ferry to get from the ship to the shore as the water isn't deep enough by the old pier. The
combination of seeing your pride and joy being loaded by crane at Mallaig and then deposited onto a
smaller boat at Eigg which rocks at every ripple at both alongside the ship (MV Lochnevis) and
alongside the pier means a challenging journey. This should be easier when the new jetty is complete
later this year, may also mean more visits by CalMac as the shuttle transfer takes time.

On the other hand there is the smaller ferry from Arisaig which is for passengers only, but I don't
know about bicycles, which no doubt would have to be manhandled onto the boat and off again.

Should I be in that position, I would wait until the new jetty is ready and the bikes would then be
lifted on and off the MV Lochnevis at both ends. The nice thing about Eigg is that there isn't more
traffic, the newest vehicle is the Post Office delivery van, and there are some 'off-road' lanes
which are not too challenging to cycle. One thing that does need to be considered is that Eigg and
flat roads/lanes are mutually exclusive, so strength for extra weight on gradients is a must as well
as good brakes.

Gary - who spent a 'day' on Eigg without a bicycle.

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.