PC RANT



David Martin wrote:

> There is however a case for making the kids stand back a bit further and
> wear appropriate PPE.


Won't that just make them take greater risks?

:)

James
 
Richard wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>


>> "Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

>
>
> But what are "duffers if not duffers"?


Someone didn't go to grammar school...

James
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:12:01 +0100, "wafflycat"
<wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:

>
>"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[email protected]...
>>
>> Thinking back on this, had some twit put their hand in it or something
>> I think the safety officer would have taken a dim view.
>>

>I expect he or she might have been shattered.


Contrary to popular belief your hand won't freeze and shatter if you
put it in liquid nitrogen, I've done it and still got all my fingers.
An insulating layer of nitrogen gas forms and keeps your hand warm,
comon sense tells you when you really should take it out. Touching
solid objects cooled by liquid nitrogen is a different matter
entirely.
 
"RJ Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >My favourite recollection of grammar school chemistry was when one of the
> >lads in class set fire to the workbench during the experiment of
> >distillation of crude oil


> Not allowed to do that now...
>
> Use a made up concoction of ethanol, lubricating oil , white spirit
> and various other things.....
>

Boring.............

Hah.....

I blew the bottom of a sink out.....not telling how....

My pal, who ended up at Cambridge doing Chemistry, repainted the ceiling
with an organic reflux distillation that went wrong.
I spotted the stopper in his vertical condensor and didn't have the heart to
tell him that the instruction, 'don't let any vapour
escape', meant regulate the bunsen burner and not 'bung up the works' :)
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:15:51 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Michael
> MacClancy ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> 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'.

>
> Have you had that chip valued? It's the most remarkable example I think
> I've ever seen.


I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.
--
Michael MacClancy
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:22:36 +0100, Richard Bates wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:56:23 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.

>
> Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?


I can't say that I have.
--
Michael MacClancy
 
David Martin wrote:

> Sodium. AN inch cube in a fire bucket was quite sufficient (outside in the
> car park with everyone standing well back) to demonstrate a vigorous
> exothermic reaction.
>
> The cubic millimetre of potassium in concentrated nitric acid was enough to
> blow a hole in the bottom of the glass beaker it was in (which was itself in
> a large perspex vessel of water), indicating the oxidative effect of certain
> acids.


We had the inch cube and bucket in the car park. Did for the bucket.
Curiously, potassium being that much /more/ reactive didn't appear to
get the same "head of steam" behind the reaction, though the teacher
didn't try it with an inch cube. A small amount jetted about happily on
the water powered by a jet of reaction gas, where a similar amount of Na
seemed to save itself up for a bangette.

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


I would tell you, but I can't remember...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> If it worked.

>
>
> Chemistry should work.
>
> Remember the rules:
> It it wriggles it's biology.
> If it stinks it's chemistry.
> If it doesn't work it's physics.
>


....and if it doesn't work until you kick it its engineering ;-)

Tony
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:08:43 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

> "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!


No, all you have is a habit of referring to your secondary school as
'grammar school'. I find that unusual. People I know who went to public
schools don't refer to their 'public school chemistry' and I've never heard
anyone refer to their 'comprehensive school chemistry'. I merely asked why
you do it. My comment about grammar school snobs was meant to be tongue in
cheek and therefore was followed by a smiley. Apologies if you felt it was
offensive.

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


That's something on which we'll have to differ.

--
Michael MacClancy
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
> what is not there.


So you went to the same grammar school as Helen!

"...."Tricia"; you read into things that which is not there"

Sigh!

Tony
 
On 31/3/05 12:33 am, in article
[email protected], "James Annan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> David Martin wrote:
>>

>
>>> "Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

>>
>>
>> But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

>
> Someone didn't go to grammar school...


Someone who didn't spot the quotes indicating that this was a quotation, in
this case from a childrens story. The text is from a telegram sent by
Captain Walker RN to Mrs walker regarding their four children on holiday.

Ob cycling, in which of the books in the series is a crime solved (in part)
by identifying the make of a bicycle tyre from it's tread.

...d
 
in message <[email protected]>, Danny Colyer
('[email protected]') wrote:

> It's presented by a purple dragon and, among others, the droolworthy
> Sarah Jane Honeywell.


in message <[email protected]>, Tim Hall
('[email protected]') wrote:

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


What is it about a PC Rant that brings us all out in lust?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:53:36 +0100, Richard wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>> On 30/3/05 3:15 pm, in article [email protected], "Colin
>> Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pyromancer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's the problem - people elevate "my child!!!" to a status higher
>>>>than society as a whole. This is bad for society.
>>>
>>>Yes, bloody selfish parents. If only they'd realise that the death of
>>>their child might be good for society.

>>
>>
>> "Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

>
> But what are "duffers if not duffers"?
>
> Roger.


It's a telegram and makes more sense if some punctuation is added:

"Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown."

--
Michael MacClancy
 
in message <[email protected]>, James
Annan ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> David Martin wrote:

>
>>> "Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

>>
>> But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

>
> Someone didn't go to grammar school...


He does, however, know his literature, and can quote accurately from it.

Simon, tacking back up the field towards Holly Howe.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.
 
wafflycat wrote:
>
> "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?


Down with skool!

BugBear
 
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:22:36 +0100, Richard Bates wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:56:23 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.

>
> Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?


BTW, didn't your school teach you that the possessive form of a personal
name ending in s is almost always 's as is Banks's?
--
Michael MacClancy
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>...and if it doesn't work until you kick it its engineering ;-)


Oi! When I was learning engineering we would never do anything so
crude as kick it. We had a number of precise instruments we could
use to make things work... Ball peen hammer, lump hammer, mallet,
sledge hammer and so on...

Semi-related: http://tinyurl.com/4uzdm

Pete.
 
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:44:11 +0100, Michael MacClancy wrote:

>>
>> Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?

>
> BTW, didn't your school teach you that the possessive form of a personal
> name ending in s is almost always 's as is Banks's?


Try telling that to St. Thomas' Hospital.

And there have been letters to the Times about that one.
(Hint - there were two St. Thomases involved)
 
"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as JLB
> <[email protected]> breathed:
>
> >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?

>
> That's the problem - people elevate "my child!!!" to a status higher
> than society as a whole. This is bad for society.


The problem is that the H&S Nazis are now going too far. They are trying to
eliminate risk and so are reducing the educational worth of any activity.
Risk is good. We have to learn to handle risk. It is when we cannot -- and
I fear we are breeding a generation unable to evaluate and compensate for
risk -- that accidents happen.

The explosions, bangs and evil stinks that were generated in school's chemi
lab (or outside in the middle of the field) were impressive. Much of this
thread is about people having been impressed by responsible teachers taking
limited risks. They were also relatively safe -- because we had teachers
able to assess the risks and design the bang to engender the right mix of
shock and awe.

Burning a 5 mm length of magnesium ribbon is fine. Setting light to a
significant chunk on the other side of the (large) school field in the
gloaming such that the whole bloody place was lit up for several seconds was
much more impressive. Chucking a bit of potassium or sodium in a bucket is
fine -- doing it across the field such that the bucket blew apart makes sure
no one in their right mind would 'try this at home'.

A late '50's penny (1d) banger would have the H&S Nazis rushing for their
risk assessments and modern kids diving for cover. Yet we carried them
round in our pockets and threw them at each other, cats, old biddies etc..
Acceptable risk -- no. It was dangerous and stupid -- too many got hurt.
It is reasonable to control such activities.

I visited a school recently and the kids had safety glasses, rubber gloves,
almost NBC suits on -- for one of those 'nice' chemical reactions where the
liquid changes colour then precipitates out a white sludge. For goodness
sake.

By the way, a '50's 3d banger would have the H&S Nazis diving for cover.
They would probably class them as 'munitions'. They were much more fun :~)
 

Similar threads