Torygraph argues that driving crime is not real crime...

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > There are women around here who are definately _not_ ladies! This is
> > classism, not sexism. ;-)
>
> Thanks ;-)
>

<ahem> By "around here" I meant Edinburgh, not URC. Apologies to any
ladies that I may have inadvertantly offended!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> No, they are gender-neutral, that's the point. A gender-neutral term for
> a woman would be a contradiction.

I think the point was that lady, girl, damsel, etc all desribes
subcategories of woman. I find the idea of having gender neutral words
for describing gender quite a good one. I'm surprised the (extremely) PC
brigade haven't already begun the campaign... perhaps we should contact
Ms Greer!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> No, they don't. Unless all the pavement parkers I've encountered
> parked on the path 'by mistake'.

Good one on Leith walk this morning. While queueing (in a van, I must
confess!) at a set of lights with two lanes, I watched a surburban tank
drive up the cycle track, mount the curb and park. With one wheel in the
left hand lane, completely covering the cycle track and double red line.

Special. Really special.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Good. That means you're not wholly ignorant. Merely ignorant of the
> subject on which you've been posting at length.

Not necessarily. I know several people with GSCEs in IT. Please remember
that a GCSE is still a GCSE unless ungraded.

Jon

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Melanie" <[email protected]>typed

> Cars only go on the path by mistake

This statement is untrue in the world I inhabit.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Melanie" <[email protected]>typed


> Do you think cars go on the path like bikes to make them safer? I think
> cars go on the path by mistake. My dad says when there were no speed limits
> cars had no brakes and drivers had no tests.

They go on the path to:

park there
gain access to properties
avoid traffic queues
avoid collision with other vehicles

and much, much more. These are not all 'mistakes'

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Melanie" <[email protected]>typed


> Colin Blackburn wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:55:40 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> My dad thinks bikes should wait in the queue with the cars not push
> >> past where there is no room or go on the path.
> >
> > Goodbye troll.

> Couldn't you answer the question before you go or do you ride on the path
> to.

I have *never* as an adult, ridden on the footway, silly trollette.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[David Martin]

On 25/8/04 1:34 pm, in article [email protected],
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> No, they don't. Unless all the pavement parkers I've encountered
>> parked on the path 'by mistake'.
>
> Good one on Leith walk this morning. While queueing (in a van, I must
> confess!) at a set of lights with two lanes, I watched a surburban tank
> drive up the cycle track, mount the curb and park. With one wheel in the
> left hand lane, completely covering the cycle track and double red line.

That's OK, it must have been done by mistake..

<ducks, runs and hides>

...d

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:37:21 +0100 someone who may be davek
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Yes, that's why we have words such as trans-sexual, hermaphrodite and
>androgyne. The government's refusal to officially acknowledge those
>states that lie somewhere between unambiguously male and unambiguously
>female is a separate issue than whether or not we have the linguistic
>means to make the distinction.

One could argue that it is impossible to be unambiguously male and
unambiguously female, rather there is a sliding scale.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:26:50 +0100 someone who may be davek
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>However, the offending phrase is by no means the only euphemism that has
>popular currency in this NG, so I apologise for venting my spleen at
>David personally, especially as he is not even one of the worst offenders.

There is no need. It is a point which I raise in a mischievous way
from time to time to inject something a little different.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[davek]

Jon Senior wrote:
> I think the point was that lady, girl, damsel, etc all desribes
> subcategories of woman.

I'm positively bewildered by this statement. I'm afraid you'll need to
explain further because I just don't get it.

>I find the idea of having gender neutral words
> for describing gender quite a good one.

Why stop there? Why not introduce colour-neutral words to describe
colour, flavour-neutral words to describe flavour, size-neutral words to
describe size...

>I'm surprised the (extremely) PC
> brigade haven't already begun the campaign... perhaps we should contact
> Ms Greer!

Go ahead, I'm sure she'd be very interested.

d.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jon Senior wrote:

> for describing gender quite a good one. I'm surprised the (extremely) PC
> brigade haven't already begun the campaign... perhaps we should contact
> Ms Greer!

That misses the point of PC (mind you, many people do). Things are only
meant to be derided as un-PC *if*, and /only/ if, they suggest something
negative.

For example, "Black sheep of the family" implies that black sheep are in
some way worse behaved than white sheep (not so, AFAICT), for no other
reason than being black. This could suggest that being black makes one
bad, which one could reasonably claim is unfair if you're black and
being persecuted because of it.

You do get complete numpties who've missed the point completely though,
going to ludicrous extremes to remove the term "black" from completely
innocuous places. People who insist on calling a blackboard a chalkboard
have missed the fact that black as a pure description of colour has no
inferences on quality or otherwise of the board, so "blackboard" is not
an un-PC term, or it isn't if you've got a Clue.

And similarly, women are not intrinsically inferior to men, so there is
nothing to be gained in PC terms by removing terms that distinguish the two.

Main problem with PC isn't the basic idea, but the ludicrous parody of
it which the term usually brings to mind, brought to mind at least in
part by people jumping onto the bandwagon, missing the point and
carrying it far beyond its intended use.

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/

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:03:21 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>> for describing gender quite a good one. I'm surprised the (extremely) PC
>> brigade haven't already begun the campaign... perhaps we should contact
>> Ms Greer!
>
> That misses the point of PC (mind you, many people do). Things are only
> meant to be derided as un-PC *if*, and /only/ if, they suggest something
> negative.
>
> For example, "Black sheep of the family" implies that black sheep are in
> some way worse behaved than white sheep (not so, AFAICT), for no other
> reason than being black. This could suggest that being black makes one
> bad, which one could reasonably claim is unfair if you're black and
> being persecuted because of it.

Actually, correctly used, a "black sheep" is a person who does not fit in
to the norm, or is (in the context of the family) the odd one out. It
comes from the (supposed) behaviour of sheep, where often a black lamb
is left to fend for itself and rejected by its white mother. It's got
nowt to do directly with colour, and does not inately depice "bad" in
any way, except in that the "black sheep of the family" is generally
regarded as odd or somehow unworthy of the rest of them.

> You do get complete numpties who've missed the point completely though,
> going to ludicrous extremes to remove the term "black" from completely
> innocuous places. People who insist on calling a blackboard a chalkboard
> have missed the fact that black as a pure description of colour has no
> inferences on quality or otherwise of the board, so "blackboard" is not
> an un-PC term, or it isn't if you've got a Clue.
>
> And similarly, women are not intrinsically inferior to men, so there is
> nothing to be gained in PC terms by removing terms that distinguish the two.
>
> Main problem with PC isn't the basic idea, but the ludicrous parody of
> it which the term usually brings to mind, brought to mind at least in
> part by people jumping onto the bandwagon, missing the point and
> carrying it far beyond its intended use.

In electronics there is a control strategy known generally as master/slave
control, in which one piece of equipment is a master controller which
can be connected to on or more slaves by, for example, a network of
some sort. Typically the equipment might be labelled with either "Master"
or "Slave". Some numpty in Los Angeles county decided that this was
non-pc, and asked manufacturers to desist, and to label the equipment
Primary/Secondary instead. Sounds like an urban myth except that google
pulls up http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp amongst many
others.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Good. That means you're not wholly ignorant. Merely ignorant of the
> > subject on which you've been posting at length.
>
> Not necessarily. I know several people with GSCEs in IT. Please remember
> that a GCSE is still a GCSE unless ungraded.

Do you know only wholly ignorant people, then? In which case, am I
partially ignorant for knowing you online?

A

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:30:14 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:42:18 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Aren't girl cyclists accepted here in the macho world of
> >> uk.rec.cycling?
> >
> > People who propound logically inconsistent arguments and make repeated
> > ad-hominem attacks are not particularly welcomed. I've not previously
> > noted a correlation between that and sex.
>
> You might not think I'm as clever as you because you dont agree with me but
> you could be polite.


Then again, you could consider your own advice. I think it was you
that used the words "you big prat", and "how stupid are you".
Despite your tendency to call people prats and stupid, and your
inability to construct a logical, coherent and consistent train of
argument, everyone has been remarkably polite to you. Why don't you
try returning teh consideration, you could start by apologising for
calling anyone "stupid" or "prat"?

What did I say that was not polite?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:26:46 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:08:58 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> You big prat.
> >
> > Ah yes - when your own argument is weak, always be certain to avoid
> > logical debate and instead, insult your opponent. This is guaranteed
> > to make you look very clever, and win lots of support for your
> > argument.
>
> He was. Do you say *whoop* *whoop* to people who sound stupid to you.

Not personally, no.

You, on teh other hand, apparently think if appropriate to call
someone a prat when they say something you don't like. Bizarrely, you
then go on to accuse other people of being impolite.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Jon Senior wrote:
> > I think the point was that lady, girl, damsel, etc all desribes
> > subcategories of woman.
>
> I'm positively bewildered by this statement. I'm afraid you'll need to
> explain further because I just don't get it.

You're joking right?

OK. Here goes:

A lady, is a woman.
A girl, is a woman.
A damsel, is a woman.
A woman, is a human.

Thus the category of human known as "woman", contains further
subcategories of (amongst others) "lady", "girl", "damsel".

> Why stop there? Why not introduce colour-neutral words to describe
> colour, flavour-neutral words to describe flavour, size-neutral words to
> describe size...

It was a joke... I know I forgot the smiley, but I really thought it
wouldn't be necessary.

> Go ahead, I'm sure she'd be very interested.

If I didn't think she'd kill me, I'd try it. I fear very few people in
this world, but Germaine Greer leaves me petrified! :-0

Jon

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:50:42 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:15:54 +0100, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >>> Melanie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Would you rather a limit that ensured 90% drove above it, or no
> >>>>>> limit, therefore no incentive to drive faster than your comfort
> >>>>>> level?
> >>>
> >>>>> *Whoop!* *Whoop!* Bogus Assumption Alert!
> >>>
> >>>> You big prat.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, ad-hominem. So now we know where we stand.
> >>
> >> *whoop!* *whoop!* ad-hominem.
> >
> > No, I think you should look up what "ad-hominem" means before trying
> > to use it. Since ad-hominem is by definition a criticism of an
> > argument, teh observation that you are adopting an ad-hominem attack
> > cannot be an ad-hominem attack, becasue it's a criticism of your
> > _argument_, not your _person_.
> >
> >>> Compare free-travelling speeds in a 30 zone with those in a 40 zone.
> >>> I think you will find that the speed limit does indeed exert a
> >>> strong influence on speed even among those who exceed the limit.
> >>
> >> It is a coincidence.
> >
> > Ah, it all becomes clear. Since you are apparently clever enough to
> > work a computer, to come out with that is sufficient proof (so far as
> > I am concerned) that you're just a clumsy troll.
>
> I've got a gcse in IT have you. I think you must be an ad-hominem if you
> call me names when you dont agree with me

You really ought to be careful about playing the "I've got
qualification x which must be more than you" card on teh internet.
Not only can no-one tell that you are a dog, you can't tell who else
is a nobel-prize-winning professor. Besides which, the issue was not
teh adequacy of your computer knowledge, it was your ability to
process logic.

No, I do not have a gcse in IT. I do not have any gcses.

What names have I called you? Clumsy troll? That was actually the
most complimentary explanation for your behaviour that I can come up
with. I think you are trolling, but not understanding the 'rules' and
so doing so clumsily. The alternative explanations are a whole lot
less complimentary, believe me.

I honestly, genuinely believe you should find out what ad-hominem
means before you try using the term again - so far it looks remarkably
like you haven't a clue what you are talking about. That really is
advice that is trying to help you.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On 25 Aug 2004 12:37:45 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > To be really fair her daddy doesn't exist.
> >
> I thought human cloning wasn't legal yet.

Sheep-cloning is, though.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[davek]

Jon Senior wrote:
> You're joking right?

Apparently.

> Thus the category of human known as "woman", contains further
> subcategories of (amongst others) "lady", "girl", "damsel".

Ah. I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Lady, girl and damsel
are /synonyms/ for woman (in your terms, the set of damsels is identical
to the set of women). The only difference between the terms is one of
nuance.

In any case, the reason for my confusion was not this part of what you
said but the suggestion that these terms are gender-neutral. Because
they aren't.

> If I didn't think she'd kill me, I'd try it. I fear very few people in
> this world, but Germaine Greer leaves me petrified! :-0

I have a soft spot for Germaine Greer - she's clearly an extremely
intelligent person, and despite her apparent ferocity seems to me to be
eminently reasonable.

d.