PC RANT

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

Quoted message said:

... and not because you're one of those snooty grammar school snobs? ;-)

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into
things what is not there.

Clearly a Grammar School that did not teach grammar ;-)

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?

And why in nobody interested in taking Chemistry at University these days?
Because they are not allowed to be enthused for the subject by the bangs,
smells and all the other stuff that gained our interest but is now
forbidden in case is damages the nervous disposition of someone's little
darling

Tony

You have a point, Tony. Nathan is doing chemistry A-level (currently on the
AS part). When we chat about chemistry, he says that many of the experiments
I did as a kid which produced all the "ooh!" "aah!" and wonderment responses
aren't done these days. He has said that he wishes they were as it would
make chemistry more exciting - and this from a kid that loves science. Same
with biology. Gone are the days when a good culture of E.coli or staph
whatever in a petri dish filled with blood agar base was allowed to be the
object of curiosity of a schoolkid - too dangerous he was told by his
biology teacher :-( So when it came to petri dish time, Nathan gave a good
old sneeze & cough over the petri dish to see if anything interesting would
grow ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, JLB

(') said:

There has to be some balance. I enjoyed metalwork at school but I've
got doubts about the occasion (mid 1970's) when we were making things
from cast aluminium; one of my friends dropped a crucible of molten
metal on the concrete floor and, propelled by vapourised moisture from
the floor, the whole class, assembled to watch, was showered with
drops of liquid aluminium. Clothes smouldering, hair burning and an
unfortunate few clutching their faces while stumbling about screaming.
Nobody was blinded. Perhaps it's not worth trying to prevent such
things. If you've got children how would you feel?

So you had an exciting experience (which you've remembered) and you
learned something about handling hot materials? This is a bad thing?

I hope my account of what happened showed I've mixed feelings about it.
As you and others have pointed out, it certainly improved my
understanding of what can go wrong. However, I'd have probably got the
point just as well if we'd thought about it beforehand and put on
suitable face protection. Compare it to the time I was sprayed all over
with a concentrated sodium hydroxide solution; it made me very grateful
for the goggles I had on. I prefer that to being blinded and afterwards
wishing that I had worn goggles. All such experiences have increased my
inclination to wear proper eye protection on occasion, but the school
one was unnecessarily dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Yes, you can 'protect' people from 'risks', but all you'll do is end up
with half a population that's so timid it doesn't dare live life, and
the other half that are so uneducated about risk that they don't know
not to take foolish ones. Any child who gets through childhood without
at least one broken limb has missed out on a lot of necessary learning.

Not sure what your scare quotes are intended to convey. Anyway, I still
think, even it is in the national curriculum, you'll have difficulty
getting all the parents to agree to the lesson where (for their own
learning of course) you break their children's limbs. Though some
parents will be more far-sighted about it, and some teachers would not
even want to be paid.

I guess it was better in the good old days with about a dozen children
born in each family and the parents resigned to losing a few along the way.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

Clearly a Grammar School that did not teach grammar ;-)

Tony

Indeedy-doodee, so kant b a grammer snob then!

Cheers, helen s

Richard Bates said:

I once got bollocked by my previous manager because I didn't fill out
an accident form when a two year old fell over on the ward. He didn't
fall over anything. He just fell over. That's what two year olds do.

Agreed. But was the form supposed to prove that someone was paying
attention, and if anyone asked later how the child got bruised there
would be a record of the child falling? It still seems petty, but there
is some sort of point. Things can sometimes get quite nasty when small
children have unexplained injuries.

Quoted message said:

When I reluctantly filled out the form I needed to ask for advice when
I came to the section on "What measures can reasonably be implemented
to prevent recurrence".

That's easy! "None." Next question.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

wafflycat said:

So when it came to
petri dish time, Nathan gave a good old sneeze & cough over the petri
dish to see if anything interesting would grow ;-)

A sobering (and related) thought. If he had followed Good Laboratory
Practice, Fleming would never have discovered penicillin. And if he had
discovered penicillin he would more than likely be hauled up by the
regulatory authorities and admonished for breaching GLP.

Tony

David Martin said:

I failed to reach my potential in Chemistry A level through sheer hard
lazinesss.

I'm not lazy, I'm just intelligent enough to rest before I get tired ;-)

Have you read Uncle Tungsten by Oliver Sacks. A recommended read for
those nostalgic about how Chemistry used to be.

Tony

JLB said:

Richard Bates said:

I once got bollocked by my previous manager because I didn't fill out
an accident form when a two year old fell over on the ward. He didn't
fall over anything. He just fell over. That's what two year olds do.

When I reluctantly filled out the form I needed to ask for advice when
I came to the section on "What measures can reasonably be implemented
to prevent recurrence".

That's easy! "None." Next question.

"Wear a helmet" shurely?

Tony ;-)

David Martin said:

On 30/3/05 6:08 pm, in article [email hidden], "wafflycat"

Quoted message said:

I seem to have forgotten most of it now, but love watching programs like
Rough Science..

Kathy Sykes does it for me, too......

Tim

Sandy Morton said:

About a month ago I was asked by the BBC to provide hire cycles for a
family day out on Cumbrae. Programme was Cbeebies.

I was phoned this morning, day of the hire, by the researcher to say
that the person in London in carge of health and safety would not
allow children to cycle on the public roads.

CBeebies is a channel, not a programme. Any idea which programme?

(DW says "CBeebies is the bit in between", so it might be a fill in
between programmes).

As the father of two children who love watching CBeebies, I feel a
letter coming on.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Richard Bates said:

I once got bollocked by my previous manager because I didn't fill out
an accident form when a two year old fell over on the ward. He didn't
fall over anything. He just fell over. That's what two year olds do.

When I reluctantly filled out the form I needed to ask for advice when
I came to the section on "What measures can reasonably be implemented
to prevent recurrence".

Network of rails suspended from the ceiling, toddlers all secured to the
rails by reins.

Oh wait, that's not reasonable. Is it?

Quoted message said:

http://www.artybee.net/html/think_of_the_children.html

LOL, I love it.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

David Martin said:

Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?

Bad smells too?

Quoted message said:

..d (BSc in Chemistry)

OK, you presumably took it at least somewhat seriously:-)

For those of us who took it no further than A-level, there was
nothing to it except the showy bits. I firmly recollect reading
a Hamlyn All-Colour Paperback - that's just one up on a Ladybird
book - on the subject. It told me more than the A-level syllabus,
and gave me much more insight than at least the less bright of
the two teachers.

--
Nick Kew

wafflycat said:

Indeedy-doodee, so kant b a grammer snob then!

Kant be a philosophy snob, bain't 'e?

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On 30/3/05 6:49 pm, in article [email hidden],

Tim Hall said:

David Martin said:

On 30/3/05 6:08 pm, in article [email hidden], "wafflycat"

Quoted message said:

I seem to have forgotten most of it now, but love watching programs like
Rough Science..

Kathy Sykes does it for me, too......

But shes a .....

....physicist!

...d

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

Indeedy-doodee, so kant b a grammer snob then!

Kant be a philosophy snob, bain't 'e?

Dunno Phil O'Sofee wernt in my klass. Is he Irish?

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

wafflycat said:

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

Quoted message said:

... and not because you're one of those snooty grammar school snobs? ;-)

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that. The word 'grammar' was there and I assume
that it had a purpose. You could have referred to 'school chemistry' or
even 'secondary school chemistry', each of which would have been more
egalitarian than 'grammar school chemistry'.

I only picked up on it because it's not the first time I've noticed this
usage of yours.

--
Michael MacClancy

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

And the government wonder why we aren't getting enough kids doing science?
It's hardly rocket science..

Roos has pointed out to me that rocket science isn't exactly, ummmm,
rocket science... ;-/ After some thought, I think it's rocket
/engineering/ that's the trick stuff!

You're not wrong!

Chris, amateur rocket engineer
--
Chris Eilbeck
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR

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

Quoted message said:

I only picked up on it because it's not the first time I've noticed this
usage of yours.

Oh! I have a stalker!

Really, Michael, you shouldn't try to be a psychologist as you are very,
very bad at it.

Cheers, helen s

On 30/3/05 7:07 pm, in article [email hidden], "Nick

Kew said:

David Martin said:

Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?

Bad smells too?

Quoted message said:

..d (BSc in Chemistry)

OK, you presumably took it at least somewhat seriously:-)

The question was 'What is fun that I could get a degree in?'

Being reasonably numerate and wanting to do stuff that was about how things
worked, chemistry was an obvious choice (not numerate enough for
engineering/physics).

Quoted message said:

For those of us who took it no further than A-level, there was
nothing to it except the showy bits. I firmly recollect reading
a Hamlyn All-Colour Paperback - that's just one up on a Ladybird
book - on the subject. It told me more than the A-level syllabus,
and gave me much more insight than at least the less bright of
the two teachers.

Bad teachers are the death knell for any subject, but especially the
sciences. I find science inspiring and challenging. A bad teacher turns it
into an insipid collection of facts that would bore the pants of almost
anyone. It was becasue we had the opportunity to do 'creative' stuff, and in
order to do 'creative' stuff we needed to know how to do such stuff, that we
learned enough to be dangerous. Had the opportunity not been there, we
wouldn't have had the inspiration to learn.

...d