PC RANT

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Sandy Morton, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

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

    >
    > ... 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
     


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    wafflycat wrote:
    >
    > 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
     
  3. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > David Martin wrote:
    >>
    >> 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
     
  4. JLB

    JLB Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    > in message <[email protected]>, JLB
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
    > 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
     
  5. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "Tony Raven" <j[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > wafflycat wrote:
    >>
    >> 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
     
  6. JLB

    JLB Guest

    Richard Bates wrote:

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    wafflycat wrote:

    > 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
     
  8. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    >
    > 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
     
  9. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    JLB wrote:
    > Richard Bates wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> 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 ;-)
     
  10. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:12:32 +0100, David Martin
    <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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


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



    Tim
     
  11. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Sandy Morton wrote:
    > 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
     
  12. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Richard Bates wrote:
    > 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?

    > 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
     
  13. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    David Martin wrote:

    > Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?


    Bad smells too?

    > ..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
     
  14. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    wafflycat wrote:
    > 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
     
  15. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 30/3/05 6:49 pm, in article [email protected],
    "Tim Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:12:32 +0100, David Martin
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 30/3/05 6:08 pm, in article [email protected], "wafflycat"

    >
    >> 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
     
  16. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > wafflycat wrote:
    >> 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


    > --
    > 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
     
  17. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:14:01 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

    > "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>
    >> ... 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
     
  18. Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

    > David Martin wrote:
    >
    >> 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
     
  19. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

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

    >
    > 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
     
  20. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 30/3/05 7:07 pm, in article [email protected], "Nick
    Kew" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > David Martin wrote:
    >
    >> Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?

    >
    > Bad smells too?
    >
    >> ..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).

    > 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
     
Loading...