View Full Version : Pet Hates........or FFS
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
[
15]
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
walpurgis
20-06-2018, 09:17
Yes, there are plenty of single mothers with half a dozen or more kids from various fathers who make a 'career' of living on state handouts, all out of our pockets of course. Their brats being destined to become street criminals with long petty and more serious crime histories and naturally they will be uneducated, having wilfully resisted learning anything, so will not have any hope of useful employment. It's a vicous circle. Lowlifes breeding more of the same and in multitudes! Then, what they can't steal, they expect the nation's government to pay for. Us, in other words. Time for a cull?
.
Yes, there are plenty of single mothers with half a dozen or more kids from various fathers who make a 'career' of living on state handouts, all out of our pockets of course. Their brats being destined to become street criminals with long petty and more serious crime histories and naturally they will be uneducated, having wilfully resisted learning anything, so will not have any hope of useful employment. It's a viscous circle. Lowlifes breed more of the same, in multitudes! And what they can't steal, they expect the nation's government to pay for. Us, in other words. Time for a cull?
Since they outnumber us 100 to 1, I fear we are the ones who will be culled!
Russ
no, we will keep you clever ones to slave in our honey mines ;)
Looking back at history I can't find any evidence that there was a point in the past where
A) society was moral (pretending to be moral doesn't count).
B) smart people outnumbered stupid people
Birth control didn't begin in the 1960s. Richer/smarter people have been limiting the size of their families since at least 1900 or so. From one study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865739/
'Women who married in England in the 1860s bore an average of more than six children while their granddaughters who married in the 1910s bore fewer than three children, as the national birth-rate moved towards its nadir in 1933.'
Some of these posts sound worryingly like the sort of race-purifying propaganda that emerged in Germany in the 1920s and 30s.
Birth control didn't begin in the 1960s. Richer/smarter people have been limiting the size of their families since at least 1900 or so. From one study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865739/
'Women who married in England in the 1860s bore an average of more than six children while their granddaughters who married in the 1910s bore fewer than three children, as the national birth-rate moved towards its nadir in 1933.'
Some of these posts sound worryingly like the sort of race-purifying propaganda that emerged in Germany in the 1920s and 30s.
which ones?
The ones advocating eugenics I suspect...
Although none of it is meant seriously I'm sure.
Looking back at history I can't find any evidence that there was a point in the past where
A) society was moral (pretending to be moral doesn't count).
B) smart people outnumbered stupid people
Good point(s) Martin, we are slow learners. But I do think that now we have enough smart people and enough technology and communication channels to make a serious move towards equality and opportunity worldwide; sadly I can't see it happening any time soon thanks to our old friend 'human nature' - greed, exploitation and selfishness.
walpurgis
20-06-2018, 12:38
Equality will only occur if the less able are 'carried' by the more able. Of course that will never happen.
Equality will only occur if the less able are 'carried' by the more able. Of course that will never happen.
Not before the robots take over anyway!
he aint heavy, he's my brother
Equality will only occur if the less able are 'carried' by the more able. Of course that will never happen.
That's essentially the situation we have now.
The only problem is the less able want the more able to do more carrying than they already are, and a number of the more able also think we should do more carrying providing it isn't them who actually have to do it.
Crackles
20-06-2018, 16:46
That's essentially the situation we have now.
The only problem is the less able want the more able to do more carrying than they already are, and a number of the more able also think we should do more carrying providing it isn't them who actually have to do it.Well put.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
On the other hand a lot of the 'less able' think they are carrying the 'more able' ! (Depending how you define those labels)
Pigmy Pony
20-06-2018, 17:13
Birth control didn't begin in the 1960s. Richer/smarter people have been limiting the size of their families since at least 1900 or so. From one study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865739/
'Women who married in England in the 1860s bore an average of more than six children while their granddaughters who married in the 1910s bore fewer than three children, as the national birth-rate moved towards its nadir in 1933.'
Some of these posts sound worryingly like the sort of race-purifying propaganda that emerged in Germany in the 1920s and 30s.
Nothing sinister going on here Joe.
We're simply shining a light on some sorry facts and having a good old moan about it. It's what we do best. :)
I doubt the intelligent/stupid ratio has changed much over the years. We mustn't confuse 'stupid' with 'uneducated'. The women who have made a career of making babies probably decided (at about the age of twelve) that opportunities for them to make money is going to limited, and 'professional mum' is going to give them a steady(ish) income and some job security for the next 30 years or so.
walpurgis
20-06-2018, 17:20
On the other hand a lot of the 'less able' think they are carrying the 'more able'!
Well some of them are expected to sweep up after the more able have been busy sorting the world out.
Pigmy Pony
20-06-2018, 17:22
That's essentially the situation we have now.
The only problem is the less able want the more able to do more carrying than they already are, and a number of the more able also think we should do more carrying providing it isn't them who actually have to do it.
There are also a lot of the 'more able' who are pretending to be 'less able' to get something for nothing. :( And the health professionals have a right old time discerning the worthy from the chancers.
It's not possible to sort the world out. That's why I can never understand people getting in a tizzy about it: 'Trump's the President now and he's a bad man.'
Yeah like there was never a bad man as US President before.
It's why history should be made compulsory in schools. And proper history, too, not all that crap about what people ate and wore or what they were 'feeling'. Really pisses me off when they have these documentaries and it is all about that trivia.
'How do you think he must have felt when he was put up for auction as a slave? It must have been awful for him.'
Yes, no shit, sherlock, thanks for explaining that, here I was thinking it must have been the best day of his life.
It's why history should be made compulsory in schools.
It is, in state schools at least.
And proper history, too, not all that crap about what people ate and wore or what they were 'feeling'. Really pisses me off when they have these documentaries and it is all about that trivia.
Here's what the National Curriculum lays down as what sort of history should be taught in schools:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study
'The national curriculum for history aims to ensure that all pupils:
know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day: how people’s lives have shaped this nation and how Britain has influenced and been influenced by the wider world
know and understand significant aspects of the history of the wider world: the nature of ancient civilisations; the expansion and dissolution of empires; characteristic features of past non-European societies; achievements and follies of mankind
gain and deploy a historically grounded understanding of abstract terms such as ‘empire’, ‘civilisation’, ‘parliament’ and ‘peasantry’
understand historical concepts such as continuity and change, cause and consequence, similarity, difference and significance, and use them to make connections, draw contrasts, analyse trends, frame historically valid questions and create their own structured accounts, including written narratives and analyses
understand the methods of historical enquiry, including how evidence is used rigorously to make historical claims, and discern how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past have been constructed
gain historical perspective by placing their growing knowledge into different contexts: understanding the connections between local, regional, national and international history;
between cultural, economic, military, political, religious and social history; and between short- and long-term timescales.'
Now, there's a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, history as chronology, with a list of what happened when, but with little or no analysis of why these things happened, and, on the other hand, history as human experience ('imagine you are a peasant in Anglo-Saxon Britain') which risks losing sight of the big picture. Also, once GCSEs/A Levels loom, you're going to have to narrow the focus somewhat, to give pupils a chance to assimilate a reasonable amount of knowledge on which they can be tested.
I suspect that, now as always, children learn a fair bit of history at school, and that most of them will forget almost all of it once exams are over with and they leave school. Same goes for maths, physics, Eng Lit, Geography and woodwork.
I don't think it is compulsory for all 5 years of secondary though?
In any case they are obviously failing, I had a youngster asking me who Hitler was the other day, and was he anything to do with World War 2.
In fact even amongst people older than me there seems to be a huge dearth of historical knowledge, substituted instead with absurd lefty revisionist history taken directly from the Daily Mirror Book Of Facts.
walpurgis
21-06-2018, 11:55
I'm just trying to think of an instance where what history I do know has been useful................and I'm afraid I can't! Unless you include pub quizzes and they hardly warrant the hours and hours of teaching.
They (whoever 'they' are) say that history repeats itself. I'm more inclined to think human behaviour repeats itself, but that still suggests that nothing is learnt from the past!
Crackles
21-06-2018, 11:58
I don't think it is compulsory for all 5 years of secondary though?
In any case they are obviously failing, I had a youngster asking me who Hitler was the other day, and was he anything to do with World War 2.
In fact even amongst people older than me there seems to be a huge dearth of historical knowledge, substituted instead with absurd lefty revisionist history taken directly from the Daily Mirror Book Of Facts.Yep. The BBC is the worst. They are far more concerned with social engineering and imposing their middle-class lefty worldview on the population than actually representing facts. Their current dishonesty regarding the suffragettes being a classic example, or their comical placing of black characters in historical dramas.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Yep. The BBC is the worst. They are far more concerned with social engineering and imposing their middle-class lefty worldview on the population than actually representing facts. Their current dishonesty regarding the suffragettes being a classic example, or their comical placing of black characters in historical dramas.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
The BBC are one of the worst offenders I agree, especially when it comes to topics like slavery and The Empire. Not seen their re-writing of the suffragettes yet but I'm sure it will have me shouting at the telly.
I don't think it is compulsory for all 5 years of secondary though?
In any case they are obviously failing, I had a youngster asking me who Hitler was the other day, and was he anything to do with World War 2.
In fact even amongst people older than me there seems to be a huge dearth of historical knowledge, substituted instead with absurd lefty revisionist history taken directly from the Daily Mirror Book Of Facts.
That's the problem once you move from bare facts (WWII began in 1939) to analysis (what were the causes of WWII?). The former is objective, the latter subjective. I bet that Japanese schoolchildren learn a very different version of the causes and events of WWII than British children.
That's the problem once you move from bare facts (WWII began in 1939) to analysis (what were the causes of WWII?). The former is objective, the latter subjective. I bet that Japanese schoolchildren learn a very different version of the causes and events of WWII than British children.
Possibly, although the cause of WW2 for Japan was entirely different from the cause of WW2 for Britain and Germany. Same applies to Russia and the USA.
It isn't really the analysis that is the problem. The problem is you can't even begin an analysis without already knowing the basic, undisputed facts. I've no problem with someone's analysis being different from my own, that's interesting and a starting point for debate. It's when their analysis is based upon factual errors or an ignorance of the facts that I despair.
walpurgis
21-06-2018, 12:37
I blame Franz Ferdinand. If he hadn't got himself bumped off, we might have avoided WW1. The after effects of which (oppression of the German people) led directly to the rise of the Nazis and consequently WW2!
ww2 reasons are a bit like an airliner crash. lots of different things compounded to create it. same to an extent on ww1.
it should be taught worldwide but it wont be. will it happen again; well it has in smaller ways and probably always will. we are a belligerent animal
Possibly, although the cause of WW2 for Japan was entirely different from the cause of WW2 for Britain and Germany. Same applies to Russia and the USA.
It isn't really the analysis that is the problem. The problem is you can't even begin an analysis without already knowing the basic, undisputed facts. I've no problem with someone's analysis being different from my own, that's interesting and a starting point for debate. It's when their analysis is based upon factual errors or an ignorance of the facts that I despair.
Who gets to decide what are facts?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8940481/Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-veterans-and-politicians-to-question-causes-of-Pacific-war.html
'An association of veterans and nationalist Japanese politicians and scholars is to hold a conference in Tokyo on Thursday to consider the question of why the United States started the war in the Pacific in 1941.
The conflict is generally understood to have started with the Japanese attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, on the morning of December 7. But the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact is marking the 70th anniversary of the raid in Tokyo on Thursday to discuss America's "responsibility" for the war.
"The ultimate goal of the association is to explain the true facts of history, especially when it comes to major events, such as the causes of the Pacific War," Hiromichi Moteki, secretary general of the society, told The Daily Telegraph.
"For this event, the main point is to show that the responsibility for the war was not Japan's, but America's," he said.
The society's primary aims are to promote its own understanding of history, with its scholars claiming the Nanjing Masacre is a fabrication of the Chinese government, that no women were forced into sexual slavery as "comfort women" for Japan's troops in the 1930s and 1940s and that the violent subjugation of the Korean peninsula was in the best interests of the local population.'
Who gets to decide what are facts?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8940481/Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-veterans-and-politicians-to-question-causes-of-Pacific-war.html
'An association of veterans and nationalist Japanese politicians and scholars is to hold a conference in Tokyo on Thursday to consider the question of why the United States started the war in the Pacific in 1941.
The conflict is generally understood to have started with the Japanese attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, on the morning of December 7. But the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact is marking the 70th anniversary of the raid in Tokyo on Thursday to discuss America's "responsibility" for the war.
"The ultimate goal of the association is to explain the true facts of history, especially when it comes to major events, such as the causes of the Pacific War," Hiromichi Moteki, secretary general of the society, told The Daily Telegraph.
"For this event, the main point is to show that the responsibility for the war was not Japan's, but America's," he said.
The society's primary aims are to promote its own understanding of history, with its scholars claiming the Nanjing Masacre is a fabrication of the Chinese government, that no women were forced into sexual slavery as "comfort women" for Japan's troops in the 1930s and 1940s and that the violent subjugation of the Korean peninsula was in the best interests of the local population.'
The Americans introduced sanctions, especially the oil embargo, which put Japan in the position of either backing down or going to war. Since it was unlikely that they would back down it was pretty much accepted by America that once sanctions began war with Japan would break out sooner or later.
So this is something that you can argue about based on the facts - Japan invades Manchuria - oil embargo - Pearl harbour attack. Who is ultimately responsible?
I agree once you get down into the fine detail then it is harder to be sure of the facts, but I don't see the relevance to teaching history in school as that will of necessity be done with a broader brush if they want to cover sufficient ground.
i knew a few folk who were prisoners of the japs and they were not nice folk. also one of them said he had seen what they did to the chinese.
i met a german who said the west fabricated the death camps too..... :doh:
i met a german who said the west fabricated the death camps too..... :doh:
Hard to accept the reality of that though, even though there is no doubt it happened.
In any war all the sides think they are the ones wearing the white hats. There wouldn't be any wars if that was not the case.
I blame Franz Ferdinand. If he hadn't got himself bumped off, we might have avoided WW1. The after effects of which (oppression of the German people) led directly to the rise of the Nazis and consequently WW2!
What a band though.
What a band though.
Yes - awful aren't they?
Don't know anything about em tbh but just needed to shoe horn the joke in. Was it worth it ? NO
Hard to accept the reality of that though, even though there is no doubt it happened.
In any war all the sides think they are the ones wearing the white hats. There wouldn't be any wars if that was not the case.
Safe to say our hats were whiter than the others. You couldnt beat the like of the Nazis without lowering ones standards a bit alas. It was a fight for the survival of the "free" world
Safe to say our hats were whiter than the others. You couldnt beat the like of the Nazis without lowering ones standards a bit alas. It was a fight for the survival of the "free" world
I agree. The problem is when you use being right to justify pretty much anything. Like with the strategic bombing campaign. They start out attacking military and industrial targets, realise they are not accurate enough to get a bomb within a mile of them, and so decide to swap to deliberately bombing civilian targets (cities) because they are so big you can't miss. Didn't shorten the war any but did kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Some were Nazis, some voted for Hitler, the vast majority didn't. Losses in planes and aircrews were immense.
I'm not one for judging in hindsight, and the idea that Bomber Harris and the rest were war criminals for doing it is idiotic. But it is an example of how thinking you are on the side of 'right' can lead to you doing things that are fundamentally wrong.
Crackles
21-06-2018, 18:02
i knew a few folk who were prisoners of the japs and they were not nice folk. also one of them said he had seen what they did to the chinese.
i met a german who said the west fabricated the death camps too..... :doh:My mate's dad was held as a Japanese POW in WWII and he firmly believed for the rest of his life that they were a thoroughly evil race. He hated them with an absolute passion and couldn't ever bring himself to talk about what he witnessed there.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
When I was a youth there were plenty of old boys who would not buy a German or Japanese car, would not have had one if it was free. I can understand that even though it isn't really rational. They's earned the right to be irrational.
On the whole though the plan was to draw a line under it all after the war in order not to repeat the mistake of the 1st war and break the losers' balls until they start another one. That was sensible and it pretty much worked.
My dad wouldnt buy a german car either. was offered a erc for the company car and refused it... said they killed a lot of his mates and nearly destroyed the world. TBH I dont blame him. took 6 years out of his life and shortened his by a fair bit.
that was then tho... times change
Pigmy Pony
21-06-2018, 18:20
Martin, I'm in awe of your encyclopaedic knowledge of history!
Perhaps you could provide a weekly lecture on AoS, I'm sure you would have a good following. You could call it Hi Fistory, although as the word may attract the wrong sort of interest, feel free to call it something else. :)
I agree. The problem is when you use being right to justify pretty much anything. Like with the strategic bombing campaign. They start out attacking military and industrial targets, realise they are not accurate enough to get a bomb within a mile of them, and so decide to swap to deliberately bombing civilian targets (cities) because they are so big you can't miss. Didn't shorten the war any but did kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Some were Nazis, some voted for Hitler, the vast majority didn't. Losses in planes and aircrews were immense.
I'm not one for judging in hindsight, and the idea that Bomber Harris and the rest were war criminals for doing it is idiotic. But it is an example of how thinking you are on the side of 'right' can lead to you doing things that are fundamentally wrong.
I dont agree. they started the city bombing; we retaliated. as for most didnt support the Nazis... your kidding yourself. when they were winning they loved it.
Im not saying it was a good thing to do, but Speer agreed another few bomb raids like the biggies and it would have worked.
War is a dirty business, especially if you are fighting for your very lives.
walpurgis
21-06-2018, 18:23
On the whole though the plan was to draw a line under it all after the war in order not to repeat the mistake of the 1st war and break the losers' balls until they start another one. That was sensible and it pretty much worked.
It wasn't quite like that. What was left of German industry, was comprehensively pillaged by America, Britain and the Russians in the name of 'war reparations'. A huge amount of design and engineering knowledge was taken and this later acted to undermine Germany's ability to salvage what it had left. Look at a fifties Bristol car for instance, it's basically a thirties BMW under the skin, they even stole the grille design.
It wasn't quite like that. What was left of German industry, was comprehensively pillaged by America, Britain and the Russians in the name of 'war reparations'. A huge amount of design and engineering knowledge was taken and this later acted to undermine Germany's ability to salvage what it had left. Look at a fifties Bristol car for instance, it's basically a thirties BMW under the skin, they even stole the grille design.
That did go on I agree. But we also gave them the money to rebuild from scratch which was a huge benefit to them down the line.
The UK got nothing really. The country was still recovering from WW1 which had bankrupted us and WW2 bankrupted us again. There's still engineering and other manufacturing works round here operating out of Victorian era buildings, you don't see that in Germany and Japan.
Martin, I'm in awe of your encyclopaedic knowledge of history!
Perhaps you could provide a weekly lecture on AoS, I'm sure you would have a good following. You could call it Hi Fistory, although as the word may attract the wrong sort of interest, feel free to call it something else. :)
It might attract people who were into history and fisting though. I'm sure there must be Venn diagram somewhere to show that.
That did go on I agree. But we also gave them the money to rebuild from scratch which was a huge benefit to them down the line.
The UK got nothing really. The country was still recovering from WW1 which had bankrupted us and WW2 bankrupted us again. There's still engineering and other manufacturing works round here operating out of Victorian era buildings, you don't see that in Germany and Japan.
no, the allies flattened the all.
walpurgis
21-06-2018, 18:54
no, the allies flattened the all.
Exactly what crossed my mind.
I dont agree. they started the city bombing; we retaliated. as for most didnt support the Nazis... your kidding yourself. when they were winning they loved it.
Im not saying it was a good thing to do, but Speer agreed another few bomb raids like the biggies and it would have worked.
War is a dirty business, especially if you are fighting for your very lives.
I'm not necessarily kidding myself. I mean I have no dog in the race, it wouldn't matter to me a jot if they were all Nazis, even the babies. I've read a fair bit that suggests that there was a silent majority, or at least a sizeable silent minority that didn't like any of it one bit. But what could they do about it except keep their mouths shut and pretend to go along with it? The Nazis had the country sewn up. Children were turning in their parents for defeatist talk and they were hanging them! It was nuts.
I'll give you that there was an entire program devoted to altering history from the 1950s onwards, when they realised they would have to re-instate the German army due to the perceived Soviet threat.
A lot of dissemination was done to convince people that it was only the Nazis and the SS that were really bad and the Wehrmacht fought with honour. To this day you have Bundeswehr barracks named Erwin Rommel and Sepp Dietrich, men who were committed Nazis. And with the German people as a whole it was necessary to paint the picture that they were our allies now and only a few had been Nazis. So the waters are muddied a bit.
But it still seems unlikely to me that a majority of Germans thought that Nazism and going to war with the world was anything other than completely insane.
Landloper
21-06-2018, 19:22
I recall William Shirer, an American journalist who was in Berlin when the war was announced, writing that a deathly hush fell across the centre of city and noted the concern written on the faces of Berliners. He also recorded the ecstatic crowds that celebrated the surrender of France in June 1940, and then, shortly after, the enraged demands that 'England' [sic] be flattened because of its refusal to capitulate and sue for peace. I think all three observations were made in his 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' (1960), though they may have come from his 'Berlin Diary' (1941).
I'll give you that there was an entire program devoted to altering history from the 1950s onwards, when they realised they would have to re-instate the German army due to the perceived Soviet threat.
And before that it had been necessary to whitewash the Russians, who had formed a pact with the Nazis, jointly invaded Poland with them in 1939, and then raped and murdered their way across East Germany as the Nazi armed forces collapsed.
And before that it had been necessary to whitewash the Russians, who had formed a pact with the Nazis, jointly invaded Poland with them in 1939, and then raped and murdered their way across East Germany as the Nazi armed forces collapsed.
Indeed. As far as the Russian's went I think Churchill said, 'Sometimes you have to walk with the devil until you are safely across the bridge.' Or similar anyway.
The way I see it high level politics is all pragmatism, you can only indulge your ideals and principles in the lower level stuff. Or when it's just talk.
I recall William Shirer, an American journalist who was in Berlin when the war was announced, writing that a deathly hush fell across the centre of city and noted the concern written on the faces of Berliners. He also recorded the ecstatic crowds that celebrated the surrender of France in June 1940, and then, shortly after, the enraged demands that 'England' [sic] be flattened because of its refusal to capitulate and sue for peace. I think all three observations were made in his 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' (1960), though they may have come from his 'Berlin Diary' (1941).
Can the mood of a crowd gathered in a public place be used as the guide to judge a whole nation though?
When Argentina invaded the Falklands there were many such scenes filmed. My family has many connections in Argentina and they were all horrified by it. The way they told it that was the feeling of pretty much everyone. A certain type of person gathers in a crowd in public spaces.
Landloper
21-06-2018, 19:48
'If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.' [Churchill, June 1941]
So, what can we learn from history?
It sort of reminds me of an old Peter Cook/Dudley Moore sketch where Dud interviews Pete, playing the part of an eccentric who's been trying for years to train ravens to swim underwater. At the end of the sketch:
Dud: 'Do you think you've learned from your mistakes?'
Pete: 'Oh yes; I could repeat them all exactly.'
How can you begin to understand the world you live in without a knowledge of history?
Okay, so it is perfectly possible to get right the way through life without understanding the world around you at all, or giving a toss whether you do or don't. But is that desirable?
Landloper
21-06-2018, 20:16
'Can the mood of a crowd gathered in a public place be used as the guide to judge a whole nation though?'
It isn't even a guide to judge the whole of Berlin, Martin. Just one perceptive individual's recollection that stuck in my mind.
Shirer's comments could just as easily be used to support a claim that ordinary Germans didn't want war: first dismay/concern at its announcement, joy/relief over the defeat in land fighting of Germany's principal opponents, and anger at the realisation that the war as not going to end after all because, as one German general put it, the British were too stupid to realise that they were beaten.
Now as I was saying the other day why don't pedestrians wait and cross the lights on a green instead of meandering across on a red
and potentially causing an accident with vehicles trying to drive along when its there turn ?. Just thought I d try and lighten the mood a little.
'Can the mood of a crowd gathered in a public place be used as the guide to judge a whole nation though?'
It isn't even a guide to judge the whole of Berlin, Martin. Just one perceptive individual's recollection that stuck in my mind.
Shirer's comments could just as easily be used to support a claim that ordinary Germans didn't want war: first dismay/concern at its announcement, joy/relief over the defeat in land fighting of Germany's principal opponents, and anger at the realisation that the war as not going to end after all because, as one German general put it, the British were too stupid to realise that they were beaten.
I see, I thought you were making a point in support of the idea that almost all of the German people were ardent Nazis, at least once it started going well for them.
When it comes to WW2 I prefer to read about the ordinary fighting men and their experiences these days, as opposed to the geopolitics. 'The Sharp End' by John Ellis is well worth a read, if you haven't already. Even if you've no special interest in WW2 or military history in general. Very well written. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6500889-the-sharp-end
How can you begin to understand the world you live in without a knowledge of history?
Okay, so it is perfectly possible to get right the way through life without understanding the world around you at all, or giving a toss whether you do or don't. But is that desirable?
That's two different points. On the first point, IMO you don't need to know history to understand the world you live in. Up until the end of the 19th century, very few people knew much history at all, yet they managed OK. On the second point, why is it desirable to understand the world around you? What advantage does it give you? Maybe it's better just to pootle along rather than bother your head about stuff that's beyond your control.
That's two different points. On the first point, IMO you don't need to know history to understand the world you live in. Up until the end of the 19th century, very few people knew much history at all, yet they managed OK. On the second point, why is it desirable to understand the world around you? What advantage does it give you? Maybe it's better just to pootle along rather than bother your head about stuff that's beyond your control.
They were not points they were questions. And you just asked the first one back at me. :)
I'm asking 'is it desirable for the human race as a whole that no-one knows what happened before, say Live Aid? Or more desirable that at least a vast bulk know pretty much the bones of it back to say 1066?'
I think the latter. But I'm not sure. I could be talked out of it.
I think a knowledge of history causes at least as many problems as it solves. The Balkan conflicts are so bitter partly because everyone harks back to when the Serbs defeated the Croats back in the fourteenth century. Imagine if the English (apart from some re-enactment nutters) hadn't forgotten the Civil War, or the Wars of the Roses, and were ready to kick off about the Battle of Bosworth at the drop of a hat.
Well some do like some scots etc. But fortunately it's a minority.
Tbh if Winnie hadn't been in charge we would probably have settled and then been dealt with in time.
Tbh if Winnie hadn't been in charge we would probably have settled and then been dealt with in time.
“The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war. This is the sixth Reich. The ground floor is full of gambling tables, like all the other casinos... but the place is about four stories high, in the style of a circus tent, and all manner of strange County-Fair/Polish Carnival madness is going on up in this space.”
Good old Hunter S.
Crackles
21-06-2018, 22:01
That's two different points. On the first point, IMO you don't need to know history to understand the world you live in. Up until the end of the 19th century, very few people knew much history at all, yet they managed OK. On the second point, why is it desirable to understand the world around you? What advantage does it give you? Maybe it's better just to pootle along rather than bother your head about stuff that's beyond your control.
I know lots of people who are interested in very little beyond the end of their own street and they have perfectly happy lives. People like that are despised by some people but are they really wrong to live that way?
I worked with a girl a few years back who had never heard of Barack Obama. When I was gobsmacked at her ignorance her response was that it didn't affect her life so she wasn't arsed. I couldn't really argue with that. After all, the education of everyday working class people is a relatively recent thing. 200 years ago few of us would have been able to read.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
“The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war. This is the sixth Reich. The ground floor is full of gambling tables, like all the other casinos... but the place is about four stories high, in the style of a circus tent, and all manner of strange County-Fair/Polish Carnival madness is going on up in this space.”
Good old Hunter S.
shot himself didnt he?
shot himself didnt he?
Got fed up of being old and ill.
Got fed up of being old and ill.
is that a hint :D
is that a hint :D
Youv e taking as one !
I cycle a lot in Camden and noticed lately some amazing new tarmac on many roads around here. Also, much of it is around poorer council estate areas. I only make this point because
many often say its only the rich that get looked after in this world, I m of course not trying to make out this is typical of whats happening in uk today just readdressing the balance somewhat. By contrast the other side of
Hampstead Heath where houses cost umpteen millions the road surface is appalling and is hopeless for cycling. Not sure if thats a different council though. Camden council are very keen on cycling btw.
Go on Macca get yer bike out !
walpurgis
22-06-2018, 13:10
Most councils get stuck into using their capital funding about now each year. They have to use it all up to justify getting as much or more the next year.
Here in the states, the history they are teaching is quite different from the history we were taught back in the 1970’s. And from what i know of the facts, much of it is twisted way out of wack, and whether what they are teaching is right, or wrong, the people as a whole are starting to have some very strange ideas about how things went down. People on Facebook arguing that the Americans killed 100 million Native Americans? When I confronted one with the facts, their answer was, the facts are not important, it’s the ideals that matter. And now, the history of slavery as believed by a large margin of society is completely inaccurate. Many now believe that Americans simply sailed to Africa and scooped up millions of indigenous people and brought them back to be beaten and raped continuously for hundreds of years. That Americans invented slavery, there were no slaves before the American slaves, and everyone below the Mason Dickson owned a dozen. And that the slaves rose up and freed themselves.
And then there are these comedians who are in California who ask random people on a college campus who George Washington was, or Abraham Lincoln, and they flatly have no idea!
People who graduate with a high school diploma have nearly no history, to them the world began in 1776. Nothing happened before then.
And now we’ve got the Flat Earthers, and other groups who’s very understanding is based on lies and falsehoods, and the bashing of Christians for what happened a thousand years ago. If you don’t believe in all of the most recent scientific theories and abandon God you’re an idiot who talks to a make believe man in the Sky. And people who actually believe aliens built the Pyramids, and the Holocaust never happened. We have reached a time when it’s perfectly OK to believe whatever the hell one wants to believe! And you’re an ass if you challenge anyone’s misconceptions. I’ve gotta say, the predictions in the Book of Revelation are coming true before our eyes. But make no mistake, people are twisting history around to meet their own agendas. And to cause trouble. To keep the people as confused and in disagreement amongst themselves so the government can keep stealing all our money in the name of the New World Order.
It’s all very amusing really, I mean, there’s nothing to be done, people believe whatever they want, and the new consensus is we should let them. We should not impose on other’s beliefs no matter how wrong they are, it’s a free country after all.
Russell
Most councils get stuck into using their capital funding about now each year. They have to use it all up to justify getting as much or more the next year.
Yeah how much was wasted in the Labour years of government must be frightening.
Firebottle
22-06-2018, 14:27
Isn't it common sense to use what funds are necessary and then spread whats left to more useful concerns?
Oh hang on I'm shooting myself in the foot here.
Common sense doesn't exist anymore in politics, plus the 2 opposing party ethos wouldn't allow spending less would it?
I think I've shot myself in both feet.
I cycle a lot in Camden and noticed lately some amazing new tarmac on many roads around here. Also, much of it is around poorer council estate areas. I only make this point because
many often say its only the rich that get looked after in this world, I m of course not trying to make out this is typical of whats happening in uk today just readdressing the balance somewhat. By contrast the other side of
Hampstead Heath where houses cost umpteen millions the road surface is appalling and is hopeless for cycling. Not sure if thats a different council though. Camden council are very keen on cycling btw.
Go on Macca get yer bike out !
Maybe the council's logic is that it's more cost effective to repair the roads in poorer areas to offset claims for damaged wheels etc where as in more affluent areas they all drive around in big 4x4's capable of handling the rough stuff anyway.
Here in the states, the history they are teaching is quite different from the history we were taught back in the 1970’s. And from what i know of the facts, much of it is twisted way out of wack, and whether what they are teaching is right, or wrong, the people as a whole are starting to have some very strange ideas about how things went down. People on Facebook arguing that the Americans killed 100 million Native Americans? When I confronted one with the facts, their answer was, the facts are not important, it’s the ideals that matter. And now, the history of slavery as believed by a large margin of society is completely inaccurate. Many now believe that Americans simply sailed to Africa and scooped up millions of indigenous people and brought them back to be beaten and raped continuously for hundreds of years. That Americans invented slavery, there were no slaves before the American slaves, and everyone below the Mason Dickson owned a dozen. And that the slaves rose up and freed themselves.
That sounds familiar. I had someone trying to tell me that the British introduced opium to China and got all the Chinese addicted to it. Obviously prior to the nasty British getting involved China was like some sort of nirvana or Eden.
And this wasn't a Chinese feller telling me this but a British person who clearly hates his own country so much he's prepared to believe any old nonsense he's told about it. He wants to believe. I didn't bother arguing, what's the point?
walpurgis
22-06-2018, 15:52
People on Facebook arguing that the Americans killed 100 million Native Americans?
Were there ever that many prior to western colonisation? My recollection is that the population was fairly sparse and widely spread.
Were there ever that many prior to western colonisation? My recollection is that the population was fairly sparse and widely spread.
Any figure will only be broad estimate, no records, but 100 million seems very high. Improbably high.
Crackles
22-06-2018, 18:10
Here in the states, the history they are teaching is quite different from the history we were taught back in the 1970’s. And from what i know of the facts, much of it is twisted way out of wack, and whether what they are teaching is right, or wrong, the people as a whole are starting to have some very strange ideas about how things went down. People on Facebook arguing that the Americans killed 100 million Native Americans? When I confronted one with the facts, their answer was, the facts are not important, it’s the ideals that matter. And now, the history of slavery as believed by a large margin of society is completely inaccurate. Many now believe that Americans simply sailed to Africa and scooped up millions of indigenous people and brought them back to be beaten and raped continuously for hundreds of years. That Americans invented slavery, there were no slaves before the American slaves, and everyone below the Mason Dickson owned a dozen. And that the slaves rose up and freed themselves.
And then there are these comedians who are in California who ask random people on a college campus who George Washington was, or Abraham Lincoln, and they flatly have no idea!
People who graduate with a high school diploma have nearly no history, to them the world began in 1776. Nothing happened before then.
And now we’ve got the Flat Earthers, and other groups who’s very understanding is based on lies and falsehoods, and the bashing of Christians for what happened a thousand years ago. If you don’t believe in all of the most recent scientific theories and abandon God you’re an idiot who talks to a make believe man in the Sky. And people who actually believe aliens built the Pyramids, and the Holocaust never happened. We have reached a time when it’s perfectly OK to believe whatever the hell one wants to believe! And you’re an ass if you challenge anyone’s misconceptions. I’ve gotta say, the predictions in the Book of Revelation are coming true before our eyes. But make no mistake, people are twisting history around to meet their own agendas. And to cause trouble. To keep the people as confused and in disagreement amongst themselves so the government can keep stealing all our money in the name of the New World Order.
It’s all very amusing really, I mean, there’s nothing to be done, people believe whatever they want, and the new consensus is we should let them. We should not impose on other’s beliefs no matter how wrong they are, it’s a free country after all.
RussellThere are significant numbers of people who believe that Europe started the African slave trade. They are completely unaware that Africans were enslaving Africans long before we got involved and long after we abolished it. Still goes on in Africa today.
I agree about modern social justice warriors. Their enraged and ludicrous fanaticism is like nothing I've seen before, or certainly not on the scale we see it today.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Any figure will only be broad estimate, no records, but 100 million seems very high. Improbably high.
No one knows the population of the whole of the Americas Wildly different estimates. But by the sailing of the mayflower there was probably 6/8 million. Might be added that 90% died of disease due to things like smallpox
That sounds familiar. I had someone trying to tell me that the British introduced opium to China and got all the Chinese addicted to it. Obviously prior to the nasty British getting involved China was like some sort of nirvana or Eden.
And this wasn't a Chinese feller telling me this but a British person who clearly hates his own country so much he's prepared to believe any old nonsense he's told about it. He wants to believe. I didn't bother arguing, what's the point?
Yes, the way some people bleat on you d think without colonisation every country in the world would have enjoyed a glorious and beautiful history. Don't think so !
Were there ever that many prior to western colonisation? My recollection is that the population was fairly sparse and widely spread.
The population of North America didn’t reach 100 million until the 1930’s! And look at the density of population at that time, with many cities having more than a million residence. The height of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations were before they ever saw a white man, their cultures were already on the decline when the Spanish first came to South America, and diseases like Smallpox killed the majority of all Native Americans before they ever knew a white man existed. But the consensus on this Native American Facebook Group is that white people purposely spread these diseases to kill them off, funny that no one knew what a germ was or how they spread, and believed illness was God’s punishment in those days. By the time England and France started to colonize the mainland of North America, indigenous people were very few. And while we did war with Western waring tribes like the Cherokee, most of the eastern, and even West Coast Indians were assimilated into white society. They are bread into most Americans, including myself, my grandmother was an Indian, and my great grandmother was an Indian.
I’ve thought recently that if everyone had one of these DNA tests to tell who our ancestors were, especially here in America, everyone would be shocked to find out that we are all a little Indian, black, white, Latino, and even oriental.
Russell
Whilst it isn't a good idea to trust Wikipedia on controversial issues, the use of smallpox as a biological weapon is documented by the people who did it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_warfare_involving_sm allpox
n one instance, as recorded in his journal by sundries trader and militia Captain, William Trent, on June 24, 1763, dignitaries from the Delaware tribe met with Fort Pitt officials, warned them of "great numbers of Indians" coming to attack the fort, and pleaded with them to leave the fort while there was still time. The commander of the fort refused to abandon the fort. Instead, the British gave as gifts two blankets, one silk handkerchief and one linen from the smallpox hospital,[12] to two Delaware delegates after the parley, a principal warrior named Turtleheart, and Maumaultee, a Chief. The tainted gifts were, according to their inventory accounts, given to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians".[13][14]
No one knows the population of the whole of the Americas Wildly different estimates. But by the sailing of the mayflower there was probably 6/8 million. Might be added that 90% died of disease due to things like smallpox
Sounds about right
Russ
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, the way some people bleat on you d think without colonisation every country in the world would have enjoyed a glorious and beautiful history. Don't think so !
Exactly! All of the modern conveniences we enjoy, like medicine, world trade, and a functioning civilization with money and jobs, etc. wouldn’t exist without the spread of colonization. Do people think the natives would still be hunting and fishing in paradise like they were 600 years ago? Some catastrophe would have killed them all by now anyway, from some pandemic or overpopulation, starvation, etc. And what would the population of Europe be by now if they hadn’t spread out? Do you think you could stand about 4 billion people by now? To say that the Europeans had no right to invade their county is patently absurd. For one thing, here in the US, there was no “Indian Nation”, it was just a smattering of tribes across a mostly baron landscape. There was no organized government, set borders, or national defense.
Russell
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
walpurgis
23-06-2018, 18:39
There was no organized government, set borders, or national defense
Sounds like the UK.
Whilst it isn't a good idea to trust Wikipedia on controversial issues, the use of smallpox as a biological weapon is documented by the people who did it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_warfare_involving_sm allpox
n one instance, as recorded in his journal by sundries trader and militia Captain, William Trent, on June 24, 1763, dignitaries from the Delaware tribe met with Fort Pitt officials, warned them of "great numbers of Indians" coming to attack the fort, and pleaded with them to leave the fort while there was still time. The commander of the fort refused to abandon the fort. Instead, the British gave as gifts two blankets, one silk handkerchief and one linen from the smallpox hospital,[12] to two Delaware delegates after the parley, a principal warrior named Turtleheart, and Maumaultee, a Chief. The tainted gifts were, according to their inventory accounts, given to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians".[13][14]
I’ve heard similar stories, but note the date was 1763, several hundred years after the Spanish first met the South American Indians. Probably around 1500? The great plague that wiped out the majority of Indians I’m sure was completely unintentional. And as the modern world was progressing would have happened sooner or later by some sea fairing nation, the Native Americans couldn’t remain in isolation forever. If not the Spaniards, it would have been someone else, sooner or later.
But according to a History Channel show I saw recently, the Indians gave the white people syphilis to take home! Which didn’t devastate the Europeans quite the same as small pox did the Indians, but it had a major impact none the less. The Church claimed it was God’s punishment for mixing with savages.
Russ
blankets would not be a very good way to spread it. it prefers respiratory contact tbh. wouldnt put too much stay in it
I’ve heard similar stories, but note the date was 1763, several hundred years after the Spanish first met the South American Indians. Probably around 1500? The great plague that wiped out the majority of Indians I’m sure was completely unintentional. And as the modern world was progressing would have happened sooner or later by some sea fairing nation, the Native Americans couldn’t remain in isolation forever. If not the Spaniards, it would have been someone else, sooner or later.
Russ
I agree, had to happen sooner or later.
blankets would not be a very good way to spread it. it prefers respiratory contact tbh. wouldnt put too much stay in it
My point was that they at least had a go at it. And what would anyone do if they were there at that place and time? Go up to the Indians and say sorry mate, we are out of order even being here, kill us all now.
Everyone's always under the impression that if they were back there then they would be acting like this incredibly enlightened, modern, progressive liberal. When the reality is they'd just be doing whatever it took to survive, including trying to give smallpox to the indigenous personnel.
We're in no position to judge our ancestors from the safety and comfort of our modern world. It's both arrogant and naïve in my view.
Well up to a point. But you can't just wash it all away by saying that was then either.
Crackles
23-06-2018, 19:57
My point was that they at least had a go at it. And what would anyone do if they were there at that place and time? Go up to the Indians and say sorry mate, we are out of order even being here, kill us all now.
Everyone's always under the impression that if they were back there then they would be acting like this incredibly enlightened, modern, progressive liberal. When the reality is they'd just be doing whatever it took to survive, including trying to give smallpox to the indigenous personnel.
We're in no position to judge our ancestors from the safety and comfort of our modern world. It's both arrogant and naïve in my view.Very true. People in past centuries went through hell creating the word we live in today, so that smug privileged westerners in 2018 can look back at them and sneer at their ignorance of 21st century sensibilities. Nobody gave a toss about 'celebrating diversity' when it was a celebration if your children managed to survive until adulthood.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Not washing it away just viewing it in context and without the histrionics. History is about understanding the past and finding the truth, not judging its participants from some imagined sense of moral superiority.
Exactly! I heard some woman on another forum saying she chose not to believe in God, because the laws Moses passed down were not feminist enough for her likings. It was about 6 thousand years ago? It seems many do not appreciate just how far we’ve come in the past 100 years. Another was slamming Religion because God didn’t speak out against slavery, it’s all to easy to judge people from the past. Ideals like Equality, Conservation, and Tolerance were foreign to humans, not that awful long ago. Instead of rejoicing how far we’ve come, let’s bitch about why they didn’t do it sooner? Doesn’t seem very productive.
Russell
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
walpurgis
23-06-2018, 22:54
Ideals like Equality, Conservation, and Tolerance were foreign to humans, not that awful long ago. Instead of rejoicing how far we’ve come, let’s bitch about why they didn’t do it sooner?
Perhaps they were less needed? They don't truly exist now in any case.
Just to be trivial for a moment why do the voice over announcers for new films coming to cinemas seem to be incapable of say the date correctly, ie; " coming to a cinema near you June twenty nine " . I know what they're saying but it grates on me.
OK, back to world history
Perhaps they were less needed? They don't truly exist now in any case.
Excellent point. People talk about them a lot, but don’t really practice these principles.
It’s excellent to have an intelligent conversation! If I had voiced any of these points on any other forum it would have spiraled into a name calling shouting match.
Russell
Just to be trivial for a moment why do the voice over announcers for new films coming to cinemas seem to be incapable of say the date correctly, ie; " coming to a cinema near you June twenty nine " . I know what they're saying but it grates on me.
OK, back to world history
I saw a TV show about how movie trailer voice overs all come from one particular school, it’s like a major or something. “I have a communications degree in Movie Trailer Voice Overs”. It’s like the voice hasn’t changed in 50 years!
Russell
Perhaps they were less needed? They don't truly exist now in any case.
The ideals exist and a lot of people are pretty keen to trumpet them but when it's their ass on the line its amazing how quickly they forget about them and act in their own self-interest even if it means someone else gets screwed over.
Exactly! I heard some woman on another forum saying she chose not to believe in God, because the laws Moses passed down were not feminist enough for her likings. It was about 6 thousand years ago? It seems many do not appreciate just how far we’ve come in the past 100 years. Another was slamming Religion because God didn’t speak out against slavery, it’s all to easy to judge people from the past. Ideals like Equality, Conservation, and Tolerance were foreign to humans, not that awful long ago. Instead of rejoicing how far we’ve come, let’s bitch about why they didn’t do it sooner? Doesn’t seem very productive.
But surely it's right to reject God/established religions if the laws they lay down are no longer relevant and merely reflect the power structures of past societies? The essential 'nut' is the Golden Rule: 'Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself'. It's common to most religions and non-religious systems of ethics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
The trouble with all religions is that they are man-made constructs, which overlay lots of 'ifs' and 'buts' on top of this basic idea; so you must treat everyone as you would wish to be treated yourself unless they are heathens, slaves. foreigners, women, heretics etc etc. Christianity held on to its basic tenets of love, tolerance, non-violence and forgiveness until it became a state religion instead of a minor sect, then it became persecutor rather than persecuted. Looking back over human history, religions have, on the whole, been very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Or you could argue that if it wasn't for religion slavery would still be acceptable. Trying to reconcile religious beliefs with the idea that it was okay to own people and make them work for you for nothing was a big driver behind the abolitionist movement.
Morality is relative and culturally defined so it helps if there are rules laid down about what is and isn't acceptable, and that these are known about and respected by a majority of people. They might still do the wrong thing but at least they are aware that they are doing the wrong thing.
Wheras without the clearly defined objective morality that religion provides, anything goes. Secular attempts to control behaviour via moral one-upmanship are doomed to failure because no-one respects what is ultimately just another bloke's viewpoint.
religions have, on the whole, been very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
agree up to a point, although its not religion at fault but mankind.
as for first part, rejecting god is fair enough if its your desire due to disagreeing with the basis of the script, but to say you dont believe in god because of the anti feminist attitudes is not logical. better to reject it surly
Not washing it away just viewing it in context and without the histrionics. History is about understanding the past and finding the truth.
'Finding the truth' is the tricky bit, especially when it's the victors who write the history.
Looking back into my distant schooldays, whether because the majority of our teachers were Irish Catholics, or for some other reason, there was no glossing over the misdeeds and follies of the British Empire. If anything, the emphasis was on the British as being the villains of the piece as often as not, eg in the African slave trade, the Irish potato famine, and the Crimean War. Mind you, history came to a full stop in 1914, not a minute too soon as far as we were concerned.
walpurgis
24-06-2018, 08:48
But surely it's right to reject God/established religions
If I spoke my thoughts on 'misguided imaginings' it would probably ruffle many feathers. I'll leave it there!
'Finding the truth' is the tricky bit, especially when it's the victors who write the history.
.
That's the challenge that makes history an interesting subject. Well, for me, anyway. I agree in a lot of cases, especially the further back you go, it starts to become impossible to be certain. Although one of the most important lessons of history is that whilst times change, people don't and their actions are governed by the same basic drives that they always were.
If I spoke my thoughts on 'misguided imaginings' it would probably ruffle many feathers. I'll leave it there!
Well I'm sure we've all heard the atheist schtick before. I'll refer you to Voltaire. 'If God did not exist it would be necessary for man to invent him.'
I read some comments on a news article the other day with many on both sides arguing that to believe in God you must reject science, and to believe in the “Truth”, of science you cannot believe in a God. Only one person said, “why must they be mutually exclusive?”.
Personally I don’t understand the reasoning why you must reject God to believe in science? Everyone leans on the Genesis story of the universe being created in 6 days. Well the story is told from God’s point of view, and on the first day, he created the heavens and the earth, so, if there was no earth when that day started, then it obviously is not talking about our earth centric 24 hour days. Knowing we can see 13 billion years out into space kinda proves that’s not talking about the average earth week.
I agree that religion is a construct of Man, but just because man has twisted religion around to control others and get rich, is no real proof that God doesn’t exist. The Bible constantly warns against false doctrine and false profits, etc.
Personally I don’t believe in God because my parents raised me in the church, or because I need to believe in a higher power or need God to explain all the things that science can’t. I believe in God because of personal experiences, religious experiences that have proven to me that God and Jesus are real. I understand that without these experiences I too would probably be very skeptical, and often wonder why others have not had religious experiences of their own? Or perhaps they have, and choose not to believe they were real? It really is puzzling to me. I don’t go around preaching because I don’t expect my personal experiences to convince anyone else, they were meant for me and me alone. And I certainly don’t think I’m better than anyone else because I believe and they don’t. Some may think it’s their calling to convert everyone they meet, but I am sure that’s not my calling. To each their own, surely everyone on earth has heard of Jesus by now? After that, it’s up to each to make up their own minds. I don’t belong to any church, and I don’t knock those that do. And I fully understand why many none Christians don’t like Christians because of those who have a “Holier than Thou”, attitude. Which is exactly what Jesus said not to do! Which goes back to that Golden Rule, which many preach, but fail to follow.
Russell
Jeeves said : "'I wonder if I might draw your attention to an observation of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius? He said "Does anything befall you? It is good. It is part of the destiny of the universe ordained for you from the beginning. All that befalls you is part of the great web.'"
I breathed a bit stertorously. 'He said that, did he?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Well, you can tell him from me he's an ass.'"
Interesting quote Joe, what’s that from?
Ok, I’m done. I’ve voiced all my opinions and bared my soul before all of AOS! You can have your thread back. Just needed to get it all off my chest I guess? As I said, there’s no other place I could have said all that without causing a shit storm. So I’m over it, time to lighten up a bit.....
Is it just me? Or does it seem that no matter what minute of the hour I change the channel on cable TV, the channel I’m switching to will be on commercial? Every single time! What’s up with that?
Russell
Crackles
25-06-2018, 06:42
Jeeves said : "'I wonder if I might draw your attention to an observation of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius? He said "Does anything befall you? It is good. It is part of the destiny of the universe ordained for you from the beginning. All that befalls you is part of the great web.'"
I breathed a bit stertorously. 'He said that, did he?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Well, you can tell him from me he's an ass.'"Have you ever read Voltaire's book based on the same theme as that quote?
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Have you ever read Voltaire's book based on the same theme as that quote?
To be candide, non.
Crackles
25-06-2018, 07:27
To be candide, non.I see what you did there. He was taking the piss out of the popular philosophy (at the time) that all's well that ends well. It's quite amusing.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Far too much intellectual posturing on this thread... Can we lower the tone please and discuss some meaningless drivel instead?;)
Marco.
nonuffin
25-06-2018, 07:42
Far too much intellectual posturing on this thread... Can we lower the tone please and discuss some meaningless drivel instead?;)
Marco.
BUM :lol:
Far too much intellectual posturing on this thread... .
It wasn't us! Some older boys started it and then ran off.
Crackles
25-06-2018, 08:06
Far too much intellectual posturing on this thread... Can we lower the tone please and discuss some meaningless drivel instead?;)
Marco.Posturing indeed!
Fair point though, it has drifted all over the place.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Far too much intellectual posturing on this thread... Can we lower the tone please and discuss some meaningless drivel instead?;)
Marco.
Isn't that what 3WD is for?
Isn't that what 3WD is for?
That thread's for meaningless drivel, not for the discussion of meaningless drivel.
That thread's for meaningless drivel, not for the discussion of meaningless drivel.
its no institutionalised tho.
That thread's for meaningless drivel, not for the discussion of meaningless drivel.
'Is it it possible to discuss the meaningless?' Discuss.
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 11:46
'Is it it possible to discuss the meaningless?' Discuss.
Depends what you mean
Crackles
25-06-2018, 11:50
Depends what you meanAnd whether what you mean by meaningless is meaningful...
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
'Is it it possible to discuss the meaningless?' Discuss.
On a hi-fi site?
Are you kidding?
On a hi-fi site?
Are you kidding?
I see your point. I guess all hifi discussions are meaningless, as demonstrated by the nonsense people write when trying to describe how a system sounds. Either it's yer 'inky blackness' and 'walk-in soundstage' and 'even my wife who does not normally notice such things ...', or it's yer 'all the musicians sound like they're playing together' and 'I heard things I'd never noticed before, even though I've listened to this album 3,000 times'. Even funnier is when a You Tube video is posted as evidence of how good a system sounds, because it's not as if it's going to be played via a crappy laptop speaker or anything, is it?
'My wife immediately noticed it was meaningless from the next room'
Of course, it's only really possible to establish meaninglessness through rigorous A/B double blind testing supervised by James Randi (unless he's dead, in which case it'll have to be Alan Shaw).
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 12:33
Please ensure meaningless does not get confused with pointless.
For pointless, just make it a thread about Shakespeare.
Marco.
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 12:45
or Tory benevolence
I see your point. I guess all hifi discussions are meaningless, as demonstrated by the nonsense people write when trying to describe how a system sounds.
Better that, in my book, and at least making an attempt to describe what is heard, than sitting back and posting nothing. The quickest way to kill any forum is to stifle discussion, unless the content meets with someone's misplaced 'intellectual approval';)
Even funnier is when a You Tube video is posted as evidence of how good a system sounds, because it's not as if it's going to be played via a crappy laptop speaker or anything, is it?
How do you know that as a fact? Most folk on forums like this, who own a smart TV, or have a music streaming system, run YouTube through their hi-fi system (count me in). Therefore, it's perfectly possible to make some sort of judgment on the sonic ability of the systems you mention.
Just because you're stuck in the past, and refuse to avail yourself of such technology, doesn't mean that everyone else is!:ner:
Marco.
Or Scottish football.
Or politics, especially Brexit.
Marco.
P.S I'm all for having a nice hard one.
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 13:02
The Fermi Paradox is meaningless (probably).
WESTLOWER
25-06-2018, 13:13
'My wife immediately noticed it was meaningless from the next room'
:rofl:
My wife immediately noticed I was pointless and our relationship was meaningless from the next room!
Have you ever read Voltaire's book based on the same theme as that quote?
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
I’m afraid I haven’t read it. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that wasn’t a technical manual. That’s what TV is for!
Russell
How do you know that as a fact? Most folk on forums like this, who own a smart TV, or have a music streaming system, run YouTube through their hi-fi system (count me in). Therefore, it's perfectly possible to make some sort of judgment on the sonic ability of the systems you mention.
Just because you're stuck in the past, and refuse to avail yourself of such technology, doesn't mean that everyone else is!:ner:
Marco.
Except they probably recorded said stereo with the microphone on their cell phone!
I won’t say it’s impossible to record a stereo with properly placed studio mic’s, and capture some essence of its sound, but YouTube videos have notoriously bad sound. If you made a nice 16/44 digital copy for download, wouldn’t the stereo you played it back on instill it’s own sonic characteristics onto the playback?
Having said that, I still enjoy some super system videos from time to time, even listening on my iPad.
I’ve even purchased microphones by YouTube comparison videos!
Russell
Sure, Russell, I accept that, but for me the quality is still good enough on the better videos, where someone's taken more care with the recording, for me to appreciate what the system shown is potentially capable of in real life:)
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
25-06-2018, 19:01
Better that, in my book, and at least making an attempt to describe what is heard, than sitting back and posting nothing. The quickest way to kill any forum is to stifle discussion, unless the content meets with someone's misplaced 'intellectual approval';)
How do you know that as a fact? Most folk on forums like this, who own a smart TV, or have a music streaming system, run YouTube through their hi-fi system (count me in). Therefore, it's perfectly possible to make some sort of judgment on the sonic ability of the systems you mention.
Just because you're stuck in the past, and refuse to avail yourself of such technology, doesn't mean that everyone else is!:ner:
Marco.
But if you're listening to some You Tube thingy through your hifi system, surely you're hearing your own hifi system, regardless of programme material? If not, perhaps you could send me a vid of your setup in action, I'll play it through my system and then I can make an informed opinion on the merits of your stuff!
I too have seen you tube vids on my laptop of systems playing, and even with headphones on I wouldn't expect what I'm hearing to be an accurate representation. Or maybe I just need my set up to have better resolution than the system being demonstrated.
Pigmy Pony
25-06-2018, 19:04
The great thing about AoS is that it welcomes opinions regardless of how "correct" these are. Without that I'd be stuffed!
But if you're listening to some You Tube thingy through your hifi system, surely you're hearing your own hifi system, regardless of programme material?
Of course, to some extent, but if you want to form and opinion on anything, you've got to listen to it on something! How else do you think stuff gets reviewed?;)
You send, say an amplifier, to a magazine reviewer, and he reviews it in his test system. When he produces his review, you don't dismiss his views on that amplifier because he's being influenced by the sound of his source and speakers....
The reviewer has to use something to assess the amp and form an opinion on it - and so it is with me, in reference to YouTube videos. To a degree, you're always going to be influenced by the components in your existing system, when listening to anything.
If not, perhaps you could send me a vid of your setup in action, I'll play it through my system and then I can make an informed opinion on the merits of your stuff!
We used to do that often with our turntables, and what was referred to as a 'needle drop'. A soundcard was used 'digitise' the analogue signal, which you could then share with others. That was fun.
I too have seen you tube vids on my laptop of systems playing, and even with headphones on I wouldn't expect what I'm hearing to be an accurate representation.
Not an accurate representation by any means, but as I've said, good enough, IMO, for me to assess a system's potential. From what I've heard with some of the better videos, featuring equipment I've liked, if I were in the market to buy it, it would be good enough for me to seek an audition :)
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
25-06-2018, 19:54
Fair enough Marco, I see what you mean with all the points except the first line. I would say you review stuff by being in the same room as that stuff. Surely "third party" reviews would only work with the music itself?
Sure, but I'm not reviewing anything; simply using a video to determine if a system has the potential of sounding any good in real life. It's not meant to be 'serious'. The basic point being that when you're judging the sound of something, you're always going to be influenced by the sound of the equipment you're judging it with.
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
25-06-2018, 20:19
True enough. I saw a you tube video of a man fighting with a monkey. :eek: And even with the crappy resolution, it was easy to determine that fighting with a monkey isn't a good idea.
I suppose that's the good thing about You Tube - you can watch & learn without having to be there.
True enough. I saw a you tube video of a man fighting with a monkey. :eek: And even with the crappy resolution, it was easy to determine that fighting with a monkey isn't a good idea.
.
Depends how big the monkey is, surely? Those little ones you see with the fez on, they don't look like they would be too much trouble. Unless they had rabies. Or Hepatitis.
Crackles
25-06-2018, 21:05
Depends how big the monkey is, surely? Those little ones you see with the fez on, they don't look like they would be too much trouble. Unless they had rabies. Or Hepatitis.Or AIDS.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Yeah, you've put me of now and the fez isn't really a guarantee of anything.
Depends how big the monkey is, surely? Those little ones you see with the fez on, they don't look like they would be too much trouble. Unless they had rabies. Or Hepatitis.
If given the option, I'd rather take on a small monkey with rabies than a bobcat with rabies:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/17/georgia-woman-strangles-rabid-bobcat-self-defense
Preferably neither - obviously :lol:
Crackles
25-06-2018, 21:22
Yeah, you've put me of now and the fez isn't really a guarantee of anything.Quite the opposite. It might mean he can do Tommy Cooper impressions to get you off your guard, before suddenly giving you AIDS. Or rabies.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 21:31
If given the option, I'd rather take on a small monkey with rabies than a bobcat with rabies
Of course there's always a chance that the monkey might have Marberg, Ebola or some other VHF.
Sure, Russell, I accept that, but for me the quality is still good enough on the better videos, where someone's taken more care with the recording, for me to appreciate what the system shown is potentially capable of in real life:)
Marco.
Just recently, I watched a video of these speakers that were giant clear plastic horns, and the man making the video did have a studio mic at his listening position, and the video did give me an impression of how the sound was filling the room. So I guess some information is getting through?
Russell
Of course there's always a chance that the monkey might have Marberg, Ebola or some other VHF.
Aren't the government going to switch off VHF soon?
Anyway, the thing to avoid is getting a monkey on your back. They're impossible to dislodge, unless you can find a cold turkey about the place.
Pigmy Pony
25-06-2018, 22:17
Depends how big the monkey is, surely? Those little ones you see with the fez on, they don't look like they would be too much trouble. Unless they had rabies. Or Hepatitis.
I wish I could show you the video, but I don't know how to. It would be easy to find, and it's really funny! Tip: don't throw anything at a monkey, they don't like it.
Aren't the government going to switch off VHF soon?
About time - think they stopped making the tapes ages ago.
Ninanina
26-06-2018, 00:11
I visited a type of zoo one time out of season and apparently the chimps were bored... they threw, with complete accuracy, their doo doo at us... :doh:
Had to use the ladies to get cleaned off... however I love all primates, and all animals... and I hate any animal being 'used' as a prop etc
Ninanina
26-06-2018, 00:19
So.... my 'pet hate' is chimps throwing doo doo at me.... :lol:
So.... my 'pet hate' is chimps throwing doo doo at me.... :lol:
Just for you Bev
https://youtu.be/PxdnKQX3SqI
Ninanina
26-06-2018, 00:50
They are such a great shot Ian... :doh:
So.... my 'pet hate' is chimps throwing doo doo at me.... :lol:
The ultimate indignity!
I know a lawyer I’d like to hit up side his head with one of mine!
Russ
Crackles
26-06-2018, 04:17
I wish I could show you the video, but I don't know how to. It would be easy to find, and it's really funny! Tip: don't throw anything at a monkey, they don't like it.Is this it?
https://youtu.be/3sZiIkc87K4
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Pigmy Pony
26-06-2018, 06:19
Thanks John, yes that's part of it. In the version I saw, the fight goes on quite a bit longer, with a voice over by some Australian comedian who is a bit of a 'Steve Irwin' type. It seems that throwing stuff is a big part of primates' culture, as was Bev's experience!
https://youtu.be/fmDv9aoxWsg
Worth a laugh
Russell
Pigmy Pony
26-06-2018, 16:33
:lol: How on earth did he make it to the shop? The commentary is the icing on the cake! I think it's the same guys that voiced over on the man v monkey vid.
About time - think they stopped making the tapes ages ago.
VHF - not VHS!
walpurgis
26-06-2018, 16:43
https://youtu.be/fmDv9aoxWsg
That has to be staged. I don't think it's real.
Pigmy Pony
26-06-2018, 17:02
Some of these vids are hilarious. Perhaps we should have a thread for just such things. And include step-by-step instructions on how to post the vids (for me). :D
Some of these vids are hilarious. Perhaps we should have a thread for just such things. And include step-by-step instructions on how to post the vids (for me). :D
Click on the YouTube video, and copy the url. Paste the url into the thread, but delete everything to the left of the "=" sign (including the '=' itself), and then 'bracket' the shortened url with [ Y T ] to the left and [ / Y T] to the right (but with no spaces between any of the characters).
Thus https://youtu.be/fmDv9aoxWsg which takes you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmDv9aoxWsg&feature=youtu.be.
Edit this, thus: fmDv9aoxWsg&feature-youtu.be , then add the 'brackets', thus:
fmDv9aoxWsg&feature=youtu.be
Pigmy Pony
26-06-2018, 17:41
I'm going to go away and sulk now.
I don't know how to copy, I don't know how to paste, I don't know what a URL is, I don't know if I start out with the post I'm try to compose showing on the screen.
If I felt stupid before, now I know I'm positively thick :(
I'll just have to find someone who'll do it for me while I look over their shoulder. Anyway thanks for trying, Barry.
Don't worry I've never been able to post videos either. Actually I managed it once but that was more by chance and I've never been able to replicate that success. if a list of instructions is longer than 3 lines my brain shuts down.
If you right click on something like a URL it should go blue and options like copy appear. Left Click on copy then when you want to paste right click and then paste with left button. There is a box at top next to tree which will do all the rest. Click on box then paste into it. Then ok and it will appear in post as a video
VHF - not VHS!
Ya don't say :lol:
Pigmy Pony
26-06-2018, 18:40
If you right click on something like a URL it should go blue and options like copy appear. Left Click on copy then when you want to paste right click and then paste with left button. There is a box at top next to tree which will do all the rest. Click on box then paste into it. Then ok and it will appear in post as a video
Let's assume for a minute that I know what a URL is and what it looks like. When I right click on it, it goes blue and a list of top sites and search history appears below it, but nothing says 'copy'.
Maybe I could just record You Tube videos onto VHS, and send it parcel post.
Don't worry I've never been able to post videos either. Actually I managed it once but that was more by chance and I've never been able to replicate that success. if a list of instructions is longer than 3 lines my brain shuts down.
Lol... It's a piece of piss, daftee. If I can do it, anyone can!:D
Next time I'm at your place, I'll show you on your lappy.
Steve, is your computer a Windows machine or a Mac? Why not Google the relevant sites for help on how to copy and paste, and also how to post YouTube videos?
There may even be videos on it!:eyebrows:
Marco.
Crackles
27-06-2018, 05:19
Let's assume for a minute that I know what a URL is and what it looks like. When I right click on it, it goes blue and a list of top sites and search history appears below it, but nothing says 'copy'.
Maybe I could just record You Tube videos onto VHS, and send it parcel post.The URL is the website address that starts with www. or http. Click your mouse on it and it should turn blue.
Then press the 'ctrl' key and c on your keyboard at the same time to copy it.
Click where you want to paste it and press ctrl and v on your keyboard at the same time to paste it.
Or there's better instructions here:
https://www.digitalunite.com/guides/microsoft-word/how-copy-and-paste-text
I've assumed you're on Windows not a Mac?
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Let's assume for a minute that I know what a URL is and what it looks like. When I right click on it, it goes blue and a list of top sites and search history appears below it, but nothing says 'copy'.
Maybe I could just record You Tube videos onto VHS, and send it parcel post.
I didn’t do any of that stuff. On my tablet, right under the video in YouTube are some options, one says “Share”, I clicked on Share, and it brought up a window with a few options, and the first grey circle says, “Copy Link”, so, I clicked on that. After a few seconds it says, “copied”. Then I opened the text box here in AoS, and held down in the text area for a few seconds (on a regular computer you right click) and it offers the option to paste. That’s how I posted that video. I’m using Tapatalk, so the pasting part may be different if you’re not, but a right click should still work.
Russell
https://youtu.be/fmDv9aoxWsg
That has to be staged. I don't think it's real.
I’ve seen the Video a while back, a year or more, but without the commentary, seemed real in the original. If he’s acting he’s a damn good actor!
I can’t believe no one helped him! I’d at least have walked him to the car. Before he knocked over half the store!
Russell
Crackles
27-06-2018, 05:55
I’ve seen the Video a while back, a year or more, but without the commentary, seemed real in the original. If he’s acting he’s a damn good actor!
I can’t believe no one helped him! I’d at least have walked him to the car. Before he knocked over half the store!
RussellI've just watched that for the first time. Absolutely hilarious [emoji23]
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Pigmy Pony
27-06-2018, 06:15
The video is funny enough just on its own, but the Aussie commentary is what really does it for me. I've seen a few of theirs now. Shows Jeremy "little paw" Beadle how it should be done.
Thanks for all you suggestions guys, I'll be trying these when I get in from work. I was pretty despondent yesterday, but this morning I feel ready to take on the big bad world of computer savieness, and if that's not a proper word, tough, I've just made it one :D
By the way, my laptop is Windows, not Mac.
walpurgis
27-06-2018, 07:45
If you want to experiment with cut & paste, try sending yourself a PM with those links/URL's attached. You won't do any harm and only you will se any cock-ups! :)
My wife tried a cut and paste once, made a heck of a mess on the screen - had to get the scissors sharpened too!
walpurgis
30-06-2018, 17:34
Ah. And there I was thnking it had something to do with a knife fight! ;)
Sat in all afternoon waiting for British Gas bloke. No sign of him at 5 pm, so rang up and asked where he was. 'He'll be with you shortly' was the reply. At 5.45, a call from British Gas. 'Sorry we've had to cancel your appointment today, we're ringing to re-arrange'. Me: 'I spoke to you lot at 5 and you said the bloke was on his way'. British Gas: 'Oh, I don't know why anyone would have told you that.' Me: 'I don't know either'.
Bastards!
Pigmy Pony
03-07-2018, 18:40
Sat in all afternoon waiting for British Gas bloke. No sign of him at 5 pm, so rang up and asked where he was. 'He'll be with you shortly' was the reply. At 5.45, a call from British Gas. 'Sorry we've had to cancel your appointment today, we're ringing to re-arrange'. Me: 'I spoke to you lot at 5 and you said the bloke was on his way'. British Gas: 'Oh, I don't know why anyone would have told you that.' Me: 'I don't know either'.
Bastards!
This is what you get when a company has a monopoly, or when the monopoly is taken away but the competition is no better.
Tell them you expect a 10% discount off of your next energy bill (or claim loss of earnings), for your inconvenience, because you had to take a day off work to wait in for a 'no show', and demand to speak to a supervisor about it.
I did that once and managed to get a £50 credit applied to my account. Simply don't put up with incompetence and/or bullshit. Complain and take a stand against it!
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
03-07-2018, 19:13
I'm considering switching to MarcoGas. Plentiful supply and quite safe - if there's a gas leak you'll know about it all right.
Tell them you expect a 10% discount off of your next energy bill (or claim loss of earnings), for your inconvenience, because you had to take a day off work to wait in for a 'no show', and demand to speak to a supervisor about it.
I did that once and managed to get a £50 credit applied to my account. Simply don't put up with incompetence and/or bullshit. Complain and take a stand against it!
Marco.
Depends whether you want to spend a couple of hours on the phone breaking some stupid kid's balls. Really just not worth it. I'd want £200 an hour to do that. Yes, I'd feel guilty but £200 an hour.
The trick is not to be with British Gas in the first place. They are more expensive than the others for no added value. You're going to get a rubbish service anyway, might as well pay the least amount for it.
Depends whether you want to spend a couple of hours on the phone breaking some stupid kid's balls.
Didn't take me anything like that long - about 35 mins, tops, during which time I spoke with a supervisor and obtained the necessary compensation. I can be pretty persuasive!;) It's more about the principal than anything else, as I abhor incompetence.
We did a price comparison this year, with various energy suppliers, and switched to an online-only deal with British Gas, as they were the cheapest.
Marco.
Football cards
I like a gamble, I'll bet on raindrops running down a window pane. But I hate football cards, I mean it bears no connection to football whatsoever. It might as just as well be the names of fruit and veg, it would make zero difference. And it's too easy to cheat.
Had one come round at work today, 50 options, for charity so had a go despite my misgivings; picked Liverpool (of course) and Ajax because I always liked them for some reason.
They scratch off the thing and the winner is Aston pissing Villa. Then my oppo says to me 'Oh you could see there was an 'S' in it where some of the silver had been scratched off.'
Yeah thanks for giving me that tip after the game's over. What a pal. Next time I'm telling them no chance don't care what the charity is, even if it's cats, I'm not bothered. Not playing that game no more.
Minstrel SE
06-07-2018, 18:16
People who disturb the summer peace with those bloody petrol driven leaf blowers and industrial strimmers. I look out and some workman is clearing some communal or business land by the church....of course my windows are open as I dont want to sit in a sweat box
Its not like the sound of a normal family lawnmower which can be quite pleasant...its a high revving, really annoying, higher pitched and very loud
Im having a lovely afternoon off and its like a nasty unsilenced scooter constantly reving for hours on end. It does my flipping nut in :(
Pigmy Pony
06-07-2018, 18:38
Football cards
I like a gamble, I'll bet on raindrops running down a window pane. But I hate football cards, I mean it bears no connection to football whatsoever. It might as just as well be the names of fruit and veg, it would make zero difference. And it's too easy to cheat.
Had one come round at work today, 50 options, for charity so had a go despite my misgivings; picked Liverpool (of course) and Ajax because I always liked them for some reason.
They scratch off the thing and the winner is Aston pissing Villa. Then my oppo says to me 'Oh you could see there was an 'S' in it where some of the silver had been scratched off.'
Yeah thanks for giving me that tip after the game's over. What a pal. Next time I'm telling them no chance don't care what the charity is, even if it's cats, I'm not bothered. Not playing that game no more.
Were you not wearing your lucky trackies?
I never have any luck with stuff like that, but I always seem to get drawn in.
Euro '96 was an exception though. Somebody at work drew up a sweepstake, and we got to choose two teams at £2 each. None of the money went to a charity, it all went to winner and runner up. I got on it late and got stuck with Germany and Czech Republic. Didn't have to wait for final - got all of it.
Wasn't exactly life changing though. :(
Were you not wearing your lucky trackies?
:(
That's the thing, I was. Even though the elastic in the waistband is close to perishing.
Football cards are like betting on whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead.
It's a nightmare at work, That sort of thing comes round all the time, there's 2 lotto syndicates plus a bonus ball sweepstake. And every day someone is having a child, or a birthday, or getting married. If someone moves to another department, they have a leaving whip-round! Even though they are only moving to another part of the office or to another building. I've got to work an hour a day just to earn enough to cover all that crap.
And before anyone writes in to say you don't have to be in the lottery syndicates - yes you do! If you aren't and it comes in they're all off like rats out of a drainpipe and you're left on your todd to train all the temps they'll bring in to replace them. And if you are not in it believe me it will come in. Happened to a mate of mine.
Pigmy Pony
06-07-2018, 20:31
Oh Macca, your last paragraph, that's how they get you!
I used to be in a lottery syndicate with six others, and when I left I kept my numbers going. I met up with them on the last work day before Christmas for a bit of a reunion, and straighten up with them. My share was one £1 ticket per week. The payout each year wasn't anything to write home about. One year I asked them what I owed them and it was £52. That was the last time I had anything to do with Lotto. The other six people have all since retired or been made redundant. reckon I saved a few quid there.
When Anita used to drive for Stagecoach, a work colleague won a couple of million ("it won't change me one bit!" he proudly declared.) last she heard of him he was spending his "early retirement bombing round in a new Jag in between holidays. Bastard.
She does this "Postcode Lottery, and I don't mind that. So long as those red-clad doorstep botherers give me some notice so I can be out. No win is big enough to make me endure that.
Oh Macca, your last paragraph, that's how they get you!
I used to be a professional gambler man and I can tell you now, if you think luck is random you are wrong.
I give you an example. I'm paying a quid a week for the bonus ball sweep. I don't win for two and a half years. On average I should have won at least twice in that time. So if I quit that I save a quid a week, and it isn't like the lottery, I won't be left training the temps.
But I told everyone, you watch my number will come in now after 30 months of no show. And it did, on the very next Saturday after I quit the sweep.
Pigmy Pony
06-07-2018, 21:01
"If it wasn't for bad luck, you'd have no luck at all".
The one thing that lotto gives which is beyond dispute, is hope. Makes it a bit of a bargain I suppose.
If there was no syndicate I would not play the lotto. But if there is then I have no choice even if it is only to guarantee it won't win. That's the meat of it.
Pigmy Pony
06-07-2018, 21:21
The penny's finally dropped. I see what you mean now.
It's essentially a 'Seinfeld' plot that they never used.
I took my ex to the horse races. I was reading all the stats, trying to make informed bets. She was picking the horse with the name she liked. I lost every time and she won 3 in a row! I started bidding with her and we wound up having drinks and food, and still left with $50 more than I showed up with! I wonder if my ex would think me weird if called her to pick some horses?
Russell
:rofl:
My wife immediately noticed I was pointless and our relationship was meaningless from the next room!
I didn't notice my wife in the next room.
Minstrel SE
13-07-2018, 17:41
Any scientist of good philosopher will tell you there is no such thing as luck.
Its never ceases to amaze me how we are so fascinated by the concept of luck. It is an abstract concept which is fickle unpredictable and cantankerous
"There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe". Its an event based on probability. Your being born in this country or meeting someone is a random event which you then try and put into a wider context.
The rest is your head full of lucky clover
walpurgis
13-07-2018, 17:50
"There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe". Its an event based on probability. Your being born in this country or meeting someone is a random event which you then try and put into a wider context
Lucky somebody worked that all out for us. :)
Minstrel SE
13-07-2018, 18:47
Lucky somebody worked that all out for us. :)
:D Yeah but I think its best we get our heads round that because I dont think believing in luck gets us too far in life. I understand why people talk about luck and its just a comfort blanket mainly for people who cant face the statistical truth
walpurgis
13-07-2018, 18:52
Some say, 'you make your own luck', which of course is nonsense. If you've used your brains and applied effort to make a situation work, that's not luck. Of course it could all go wrong anyway, regardless of good intent and ability. Now would that be bad luck?
Pigmy Pony
13-07-2018, 19:41
'Lucky' would be as good a word as any to describe someone who, for instance won a prize by having his name pulled out of a hat containing a thousand names. 'Raggy bastard' would do just as well. But before the draw he had no greater chance of winning than the other 999 names. So 'luck' can only describe something that has already happened, and has no meaning as far as future events are concerned.
Greg Wallace returns in yet another series of ‘eat well for less’, how many times do these thick as pig shit people need to be told ‘supermarkets own brands are cheaper’? Then they teach them how to make pale imitations of their favourite takeaways. Looks like our know nothing ex-greengrocer slaphead has been putting on the beef (the shows rules don’t apply to him) as he celebrates the fifth day he hasn’t worn a shirt
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180713/335b526f10694493c990d3cd4878ac5a.jpg
Crackles
13-07-2018, 19:51
Greg Wallace returns in yet another series of ‘eat well for less’, how many times do these thick as pig shit people need to be told ‘supermarkets own brands are cheaper’? Then they teach them how to make pale imitations of their favourite takeaways. Looks like our know nothing ex-greengrocer slaphead has been putting on the beef (the shows rules don’t apply to him) as he celebrates the fifth day he hasn’t worn a shirt
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180713/335b526f10694493c990d3cd4878ac5a.jpgJust showed this to my missus and she laughed. Very true. [emoji23]
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Pigmy Pony
13-07-2018, 20:06
As someone who has absolutely no difficulty avoiding these shows (there's always something else on and failing that, books), I find myself at a disadvantage. What's this about no shirt for five days? And did I once see this fat tosser on that 'Strictly come-on-my-face Dancing' programme?
Maybe I need to be more 'down with the kids'.
As someone who has absolutely no difficulty avoiding these shows (there's always something else on and failing that, books), I find myself at a disadvantage. What's this about no shirt for five days? And did I once see this fat tosser on that 'Strictly come-on-my-face Dancing' programme?
Maybe I need to be more 'down with the kids'.
Maybe it was just one day then & yes, he's good value for your licence fee
YP6XrO1alAs
Pigmy Pony
13-07-2018, 20:54
Bit like saying chronic diarrhoea is good value for your toilet. :(
Minstrel SE
16-07-2018, 17:19
Oh god yes the Greg Wallace programme...I caught five minutes of it and its another family who dont mind being patronised for the fee to make pig shit television for people who must be thick as PS to watch it.
I know he wants the exposure and to be as annoying as Gordon Ramsay but who commissions all these naff tv programmes. He is annoying enough on master chef without all these other spin offs (make wallace a household name).
Its mostly BS anyway as with the price of raw ingredients you dont just rustle up a meal without significant cost. They make out you can feed the five thousand with small amounts of ingredients. Fish meat and other ingredients cost so unless you are eating lentils all week its debatable how much can actually be saved.
To think any family needs that programme to cotton on is truly scary
Pieoftheday
16-07-2018, 17:32
It's essentially a 'Seinfeld' plot that they never used.
I did like Seinfeld, first 2 and a bit series arnt great but necessary to get to know the characters, poor Lilly, well she looked like a lilly:)
I did like Seinfeld, first 2 and a bit series arnt great but necessary to get to know the characters, poor Lilly, well she looked like a lilly:)
It was okay, although from that era I preferred The Larry Sanders Show.
Firebottle
16-07-2018, 18:33
Bit like saying chronic diarrhoea is good value for your toilet. :(
Brilliant!
Pieoftheday
16-07-2018, 19:26
It was okay, although from that era I preferred The Larry Sanders Show.
Never got into that, he looked a smarmy twat to me,having said that he did look similar to Seinfeld, I thought his stand up rather lame(seinfeld)
I saw a show years ago, this woman was going to show how less advantaged people can save for retirement. My ex wife was intent on watching, and it was complete rubbish. Stick the old bar of soap to the new one, add a shot of water to the end of the shampoo, stupid stuff that we had been doing since the day we were married anyway. And even dumber things like bring your own lunch to the ball game rather than buy at the park? Who’s got money for ball games? It’s true that rich people have no idea what life is like for normal people. Advice from anyone on television is nothing short of condescension.
Russell
Pigmy Pony
16-07-2018, 20:04
Best money saving advice I ever got was to use both sides of the toilet paper. Tip: wear marigolds.
walpurgis
16-07-2018, 20:10
Best money saving advice I ever got was to use both sides of the toilet paper. Tip: wear marigolds.
And why does it come with no instructions on the pack? I'm still not sure I'm using it right!
And why does it come with no instructions on the pack? I'm still not sure I'm using it right!
Clearly you are not using Andrex. They have the bare-faced cheek (:D) to 'advise' you on how to wipe your arse (and maximise the amount of toilet paper used in the process). :doh:
Crackles
16-07-2018, 21:06
I saw a show years ago, this woman was going to show how less advantaged people can save for retirement. My ex wife was intent on watching, and it was complete rubbish. Stick the old bar of soap to the new one, add a shot of water to the end of the shampoo, stupid stuff that we had been doing since the day we were married anyway. And even dumber things like bring your own lunch to the ball game rather than buy at the park? Who’s got money for ball games? It’s true that rich people have no idea what life is like for normal people. Advice from anyone on television is nothing short of condescension.
RussellBritish television has always been a narcissistic playground for the priveleged, ever since the medium was introduced. Wall to wall public school and Oxbridge dictating to the masses who directly or indirectly pay for their inflated incomes.
I mostly avoid it these days, the internet offers far more.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Pigmy Pony
16-07-2018, 21:12
Anita's son used to get a Christmas card from Andrex. Well he would have if they'd known how much of their product he used. He openly admitted to making a "mitten" to wipe his arse, and he would also lay a "raft" on the water because he had a splash phobia. We were going through a bog roll almost every day.
I did a simple calculation of my own use: 240 sheets per roll, 3 sheets per wipe, 4 wipes, equals 12 sheets per day. So a roll would last me almost 3 weeks. I pointed this out to Mrs. P, but instead of giving her son shit, she called me a sad old git.
No wonder we're always skint. :(
Firebottle
17-07-2018, 06:54
You'll have to use aversion therapy Steve, stick his hand in dog shit for a week then maybe he won't have the fear :mental:
Always do your ablutions at work as much as possible, that way you're getting paid for it and the bog roll is comped.
Does that include having a bath or shower?;)
I know that your comment was (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek... Anyone seriously thinking that way has a problem!
As for bog roll usage, I won't go there:D
Marco.
and the bog roll is comped.
I can only use Cushelle (and I don't work now anyway)
Beobloke
17-07-2018, 10:06
As for bog roll usage, I won't go there:D
Marco.
Who are you and where’s the real Marco?! ;)
Lol... Soz, I don't get what you mean?:)
Marco.
Beobloke
17-07-2018, 11:48
Lol... Soz, I don't get what you mean?:)
Marco.
I just meant that you missing out on a perfect cue for a bit of toilet humour is most unlikely, and very disappointing! I was implying that you'd been kidnapped and replaced by an impostor! :D
Lol - good to know someone appreciates it!:eyebrows:
Next time then I'll discuss my 'plop-per-wipe' ratio in detail, along with the challenge of dealing with 'slippy spreaders' [so you don't end up wearing more than you wipe] - and not forgetting my top tip on how to banish skidders, simply by perfecting your wiping angle....
Plus, one you really can't afford to miss: how wearing certain types of pants promotes a sweaty sack.
Marco.
Beobloke
17-07-2018, 12:28
Glad to hear it!
The advice Andrex give includes direction of wipe, and, incidentally, they recommend four sheets per wipe.
Firebottle
17-07-2018, 14:55
Excessive.
Excessive.
It makes corporate sense to sell as much of their product as they can.
Does that include having a bath or shower?;)
I know that your comment was (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek... Anyone seriously thinking that way has a problem!
As for bog roll usage, I won't go there:D
Marco.
Not at all tongue in cheek, economise where you can. I could have showers at work but not on their time which dulls the appeal somewhat.
Lol - so what do you do for towels? Are you happy to dry yourself/wipe your face with a towel riddled with someone's else's germs?:doh:;)
The only towels I'll ever touch are my own!!
I would never dream of attempting to wash myself properly in work's toilet. Plus, that's not economising; simply being mean (and rather filthy). It takes all sorts, I suppose...
Marco.
Lol - so what do you do for towels? Are you happy to dry yourself/wipe your face with a towel riddled with someone's else's germs?:doh:;)
The only towels I'll ever touch are my own!!
I would never dream of attempting to wash myself properly in work's toilet. Plus, that's not economising; simply being mean (and rather filthy). It takes all sorts, I suppose...
Marco.
So what do you do if you visit someone and whilst there use their loo? How do you dry your hands after washing them?
We always supply clean guest towels, which are positioned separately from ours, in a way that is obvious. You might've noticed (and hopefully used) them when you visited;)
Don't you do that? It's pretty much the norm:)
Marco.
my towels are germless....they couldnt live in my filth :ner:
Take a towel into work with you. They don't have communal towels anymore. I suppose in a pinch you could use the hand drier, depends how nimble you are.
People run or cycle into work and have a shower before they start. It isn't that unusual.
Always found wherever I worked that only two types of people would cycle into work. The top echelon, the real go-getters who are trying to do a personal best time every morning and the people at the bottom of the pile who cycle in because they can't afford two cars and it's the other half's turn to use it that day.
So what do you do if you visit someone and whilst there use their loo? How do you dry your hands after washing them?
Wipes them on his trousers like any sensible person would.
We always supply clean guest towels, which are positioned separately from ours, in a way that is obvious. You might've noticed (and hopefully used) them when you visited;)
Don't you do that? It's pretty much the norm:)
Marco.
Yes - but as I posited in my post, what would you do when visiting someone else's home?
Expect them to put out clean guest towels (as we do)!:ner:
Marco.
Expect them to put out clean guest towels (as we do)!:ner:
Marco.
But what if they haven't?
Take a towel into work with you. They don't have communal towels anymore. I suppose in a pinch you could use the hand drier, depends how nimble you are.
Lol - we live in very different worlds... Why on earth would I inconvenience myself like that when I can wash at home? To do so at work, simply to save a few pence, for me would be an anathema, not to mention plain weird. No-one I know would do that!
People run or cycle into work and have a shower before they start. It isn't that unusual.
Now that's different. They're not doing it because they're too mean to pay for the facilities at home!:D
However, I've never taken showers at work, simply because when I worked for companies, there were no such facilities. Simply a sink in the communal toilet. Also, I always either drove to work or took public transport.
Marco.
But what if they haven't?
Then I'd ask them for some. It wouldn't be an issue for most folk to supply visitors with a clean towel.
Marco.
Then I'd ask them for some. It wouldn't be an issue for most folk to supply visitors with a clean towel.
Marco.
No, like Joe says you just dry your hands on your kecks.
I'm always amazed how many towels they give you in hotels these days. Once decent size one will do me. And what's that really little one supposed to be for?
No, like Joe says you just dry your hands on your kecks.
Hardly civilised though is it? If you can't put out a clean towel for folks visiting, it's a bit of a sad day.
Marco.
No, like Joe says you just dry your hands on your kecks.
I'm always amazed how many towels they give you in hotels these days. Once decent size one will do me. And what's that really little one supposed to be for?
Probably a face flannel.
Pigmy Pony
17-07-2018, 18:29
Expect them to put out clean guest towels (as we do)!:ner:
Marco.
A bit high maintenance dude, I bet you would expect pube-free soap too...
walpurgis
17-07-2018, 18:35
It's when you get pubes on the communal toothbrush you need to worry.
Pigmy Pony
17-07-2018, 18:45
It's when you get pubes on the communal toothbrush you need to worry.
I'm fine with that, cheaper than flossing
A bit high maintenance dude, I bet you would expect pube-free soap too...
Lol... Although I love a bit of toilet humour, it's just a giggle. I/we (Del and I) have very high hygiene standards, especially when it comes to toilets and kitchens!
Marco.
Lol... Although I love a bit of toilet humour, it's just a giggle. I/we (Del and I) have very high hygiene standards, especially when it comes to toilets and kitchens!
Marco.
Sorry but my toilet isnt up to standard these days. Used to be when i was fit tho, but its fairly hi-genic. well you wont catch anything lol
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.