|
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 03/10/2010 10:45, Bruce wrote:
wrote: The Peeler wrote: wrote: The Peeler wrote: Did she look anything like Little Miss Jocelyn, then? her attitude was very similar, but she was not amused when I got her to watch that show. "What do you think I am, an A to Z?" was one of my favourite lines. A shame they took it off the air. Many clips are still available on youtube, though. It was incredibly offensive (to blacks, I thought) and some episodes scarcely had a laugh, others were very good. Why should a white person feel uncomfortable or even offended by a black person making jokes about black people? You can take political correctness too far. This, surely is one of the "joys" of the ardent Guardiansti hard core Socialist. You are there to "feel the pain" of the "less fortunate", but only if they belong to a "minority group". If you're white, straight and pay lots of tax you can go f*ck yourself as you deserve no compassion whatsoever, regardless of what calamity may fall on your head. Indeed, you probably deserve it. Little Miss Jocelyn was both intelligent and hilarious - in my opinion, one of the funniest comedy programmes of recent years! However, the novelty wore off. The first series was nominated for a BAFTA but the second series didn't attract such a big audience despite being moved from BBC3 to BBC2. It got some poor reviews. Perhaps there was too much carried over from the first series and not enough new material. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
®i©ardo wrote:
On 03/10/2010 10:45, Bruce wrote: wrote: It was incredibly offensive (to blacks, I thought) and some episodes scarcely had a laugh, others were very good. Why should a white person feel uncomfortable or even offended by a black person making jokes about black people? You can take political correctness too far. This, surely is one of the "joys" of the ardent Guardiansti hard core Socialist. You are there to "feel the pain" of the "less fortunate", but only if they belong to a "minority group". If you're white, straight and pay lots of tax you can go f*ck yourself as you deserve no compassion whatsoever, regardless of what calamity may fall on your head. Indeed, you probably deserve it. Sharply observed. ;-) |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 6 Oct, 11:57, Bruce wrote:
®i©ardo wrote: On 03/10/2010 10:45, Bruce wrote: *wrote: It was incredibly offensive (to blacks, I thought) and some episodes scarcely had a laugh, others were very good. Why should a white person feel uncomfortable or even offended by a black person making jokes about black people? You can take political correctness too far. This, surely is one of the "joys" of the ardent Guardiansti hard core Socialist. You are there to "feel the pain" of the "less fortunate", but only if they belong to a "minority group". If you're white, straight and pay lots of tax you can go f*ck yourself as you deserve no compassion whatsoever, regardless of what calamity may fall on your head. Indeed, you probably deserve it. Sharply observed. *;-) Trainspotters are always inventing straw men. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 06/10/2010 11:57, Bruce wrote:
wrote: On 03/10/2010 10:45, Bruce wrote: wrote: It was incredibly offensive (to blacks, I thought) and some episodes scarcely had a laugh, others were very good. Why should a white person feel uncomfortable or even offended by a black person making jokes about black people? You can take political correctness too far. This, surely is one of the "joys" of the ardent Guardiansti hard core Socialist. You are there to "feel the pain" of the "less fortunate", but only if they belong to a "minority group". If you're white, straight and pay lots of tax you can go f*ck yourself as you deserve no compassion whatsoever, regardless of what calamity may fall on your head. Indeed, you probably deserve it. Sharply observed. ;-) Thank you. My only regret is that I omitted the word "champagne" between "hard core" and "Socialist" from my description of the "feeler of pain". -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 03/10/2010 17:50, Nigel Oldfield wrote:
It is more likely to do with the undue pressure from managers to keep to timetables!!! Yes, I believe that is major issue. WM Didn't Mussolini have an answer to that, or was that the trains? -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 08/10/2010 21:38, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 03/10/2010 17:50, Nigel Oldfield wrote: It is more likely to do with the undue pressure from managers to keep to timetables!!! Yes, I believe that is major issue. WM Didn't Mussolini have an answer to that, or was that the trains? At least the trains ran on time, so the saying goes. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
|
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote:
wrote: On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the passenger's sense of safety. There is real aggression shown to other motorists. 'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'. Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others. I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two second rule" before overtaking anything? And you shouldn't overtake a bus. And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings. And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional drivers... It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way to buses" in all circumstances. It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving. Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of 30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers never slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of my way!" |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
In message , "
writes At least the trains ran on time, so the saying goes. Mussolini liked to give that impression, but then he also had a media ban on any reporting of train delays. :( -- Paul Terry |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , " writes At least the trains ran on time, so the saying goes. Mussolini liked to give that impression, but then he also had a media ban on any reporting of train delays. :( According to QI, he only ever made *one* train run on time., the one taking him to Rome to take up the post of Prime Minister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI_%28B....22Biscuits.22 |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote:
On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote: *wrote: On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the passenger's sense of safety. *There is real aggression shown to other motorists. *'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'. Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others. I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two second rule" before overtaking anything? And you shouldn't overtake a bus. And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings. And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional drivers... It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way to buses" in all circumstances. It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving. Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of 30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers never slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of my way!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. She had a collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. She simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told her to drive on. If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike other road users! Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what! Turk182 |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Turk182" wrote in message ... On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote: On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote: wrote: On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the passenger's sense of safety. There is real aggression shown to other motorists. 'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'. Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others. I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two second rule" before overtaking anything? And you shouldn't overtake a bus. And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings. And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional drivers... It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way to buses" in all circumstances. It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving. Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of 30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers never slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of my way!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. She had a collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. She simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told her to drive on. If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike other road users! Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what! So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers stuck behind the obstruction. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 9 Oct, 22:26, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Turk182" wrote in message ... On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote: On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote: *wrote: On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the passenger's sense of safety. *There is real aggression shown to other motorists. *'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'.. Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others. I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two second rule" before overtaking anything? And you shouldn't overtake a bus. And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings. And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional drivers... It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way to buses" in all circumstances. It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving. Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of 30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers never slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of my way!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. *She had a collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. *She simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told her to drive on. *If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike other road users! *Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what! So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers stuck behind the obstruction.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh that's interesting. But I would surely have felt miffed as I did once at Hyde Park Corner many years ago, when a bus changed lane and the back of it swung round and swiped my cars front wing doing £300 worth of damage and he/she drove off - all I could see ahead was a sea of buses! I knew it was red though! Turk182 |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Turk182" wrote in message ... On 9 Oct, 22:26, "Brimstone" wrote: "Turk182" wrote in message ... On 9 Oct, 16:01, Simon Dean wrote: On 03/10/2010 19:51, Steve Firth wrote: wrote: On about one third of the London buses I travel on, I sense the driver shows very poor appreciation of either passenger comfort or of the passenger's sense of safety. There is real aggression shown to other motorists. 'My big vehicle can intimidate you in that small car'. Well, there's been an element of that for a long time. Bus drivers will pull out without bothering to check mirrors in most instances and will use the size of their vehicle to intimidate others. I've got into this argument on YouTube... People remind about the "two second rule" before overtaking anything? And you shouldn't overtake a bus. And you shouldn't overtake in broken cross hatchings. And Bus Drivers are entitled to do what they want, they're professional drivers... It's also apparently perfectly acceptable according to the general population for a bus driver to overtake a parked car on the wrong side of the road against opposing traffic, cos you're "supposed to give way to buses" in all circumstances. It really is just shockingly bad education. Coupled with a lack of traffic police wanting to do anything about bad driving. Stagecoach drivers seem to be hitting some new low. I've noticed over the last six months that they regularly break speed limits by a considerable margin. It's not at all rare to find double decker buses exceeding 50mph in 30 limits. The service through the village where I live is frequently seen driving at a steady 50 through a succession of 30 and 40 mph limits. It's also not unusual to see the same bus being driven at stupidly high speeds on narrow country lanes the drivers never slow to pass other vehicles and seem to have an attitude of "get out of my way!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Friday I was in a bus driven by a female driver. She had a collision with another vehicle which caught the back of the bus. She simply drove on and about half a mile later, she eventually pulled over near an inspector standing by a wall, and told him about the accident, and he said, ok, took her staff number (i think), and told her to drive on. If what I saw is normal practice, then it appears to be an unwritten rule that a bus doesn't stop at an accident, unlike other road users! Sure she would have blocked the road, but so what! So, you would have complained about the delay as would all the drivers stuck behind the obstruction.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh that's interesting. But I would surely have felt miffed as I did once at Hyde Park Corner many years ago, when a bus changed lane and the back of it swung round and swiped my cars front wing doing £300 worth of damage and he/she drove off - all I could see ahead was a sea of buses! I knew it was red though! Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. I doubt the bus driver was aware of the alleged collision. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Brimstone" wrote:
Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10 Oct, 10:23, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . "Brimstone" wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. (The people who most annoyed me over the years where examiners who said the opposite of what they meant through use of "may" instead of "might", eg "extra tuition may have helped them" when they meant "extra tuition might have helped them".) |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote:
On 10 Oct, 10:23, wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. (The people who most annoyed me over the years where examiners who said the opposite of what they meant through use of "may" instead of "might", eg "extra tuition may have helped them" when they meant "extra tuition might have helped them".) -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. And the practical use of algebra to the vast majority of people is what? |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10 Oct, 14:19, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, *wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: *wrote in message ... *wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. *Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. *I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. *So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. *It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? *If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. This is probably true, although I don't see that the situation is getting worse. Pupils also make wrong assumptions. The lessons I bothered least with were in history, because I wrongly assumed it was about remembering dates and facts. Now I recognise that it is probably the most important "subject" of all. Would I have listened at the time if a teacher had tried to convince me? Probably not. I would just focus on what I had a knack for. Some people just don't get punctuation. I do. It's not because I am convinced of its importance; I just tend to get it right because I can. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10 Oct, 15:03, "Brimstone" wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, *wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: *wrote in message m... *wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. *Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. *I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. *So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. *It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? *If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. And the practical use of algebra to the vast majority of people is what? They probably don't realise they are using it, as in Amount Tendered minus Total Bill equals Change. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 10 Oct, 15:03, "Brimstone" wrote: And the practical use of algebra to the vast majority of people is what? They probably don't realise they are using it, as in Amount Tendered minus Total Bill equals Change. Otherwise known as arithmetic. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 16:10, MIG wrote:
On 10 Oct, 14:19, wrote: On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. This is probably true, although I don't see that the situation is getting worse. Pupils also make wrong assumptions. The lessons I bothered least with were in history, because I wrongly assumed it was about remembering dates and facts. Now I recognise that it is probably the most important "subject" of all. Would I have listened at the time if a teacher had tried to convince me? Probably not. I would just focus on what I had a knack for. Ah, if youth knew what age could tell. You're certainly not alone in that. Some people just don't get punctuation. I do. It's not because I am convinced of its importance; I just tend to get it right because I can. Yes, I think some of us are lucky in that respect, to be able to get it right intuitively, hopefully most of the time. I also found that my English grammar benefited enormously from studying other languages, mainly Spanish and French, and their structures, particularly with regard to the parts of speech and sentence construction. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
®i©ardo wrote:
We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Bruce" wrote in message ... ®i©ardo wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... ®i©ardo wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 19:41, Bruce wrote:
wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] Strange that you should say that, as I hesitated over whether or not to use the word "profession", relating to teaching, in an earlier posting. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 15:03, Brimstone wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. And the practical use of algebra to the vast majority of people is what? Possibly none at all to the vast majority of people, but indispensable to any one involved with physics and many branches of engineering. You could say exactly the same about calculus yet its value is unquestioned in the disciplines just mentioned. It's not a lot of use for a miserable ex-train driver though. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 15:03, Brimstone wrote: "®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 12:24, MIG wrote: On 10 Oct, 10:23, wrote: On 10/10/2010 09:53, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone who doesn't know that the overhang at the rear of a vehicle moves sideways as they turn and will hit anything in it's arc is a numbskull who should be let out of the house on his/her own. What about people who insert greengrocers' apostrophes and write the opposite of what they intended to say? Aren't they numbskulls* too? Should they be let out on their own? * Or should that be "numbskull's"? What about those people who have got nothing better to do than pick up on people's typographical, grammatical and spelling errors, aren't they numbskulls as well? Should they be allowed to use a computer? Hmm, touchy, touchy. We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. Teachers tried to teach me various things. Some I had a knack for and took in; others I never really understood and didn't bother with. There's no reason for punctuation to be any different from anything else that one can be taught. Very true, but, given patience anything can be taught but these days it seems that many in the teaching profession just can't be bothered to do so. Indeed, there seems to be some sort of perverse pride in not correcting errors, whether that be in our language or in mathematical calculations. If students are not advised where they are going wrong, they will never learn that what they are doing is wrong. As for numeracy, I seem to remember my grandparents thinking that use of calculators was "cheating", because basic arithmetic was the most advanced mathematical concept that they'd ever been tested on. I tried to explain that we were learning concepts way beyond arithmetic and were using calcutors to save time, and that no marks were given for the correctness of the arithmetic. So I'd say that things had certainly advanced a lot between their generation and mine. It seems likely that they have continued to do so. There may be less memorising and chanting, more more understanding. Understanding of what, if the student is unable to do simple addition, subtraction and multiplication? If they are employed say, in a bar, and can't add up the price of three drinks in order to give the correct change from a £10 note what use is that to man or beast? If they make a purchase and are unable to comprehend that they have been short changed, how does that help them? Unfortunately you sum the real tragedy of the matter with your comment: "...others I never really understood and didn't bother with". My son had terrible problems with algebra, in particular, which his school seemed totally unwilling to address, and this was also something that my wife had given up on at school, which follows your telling comment about never having really understood and the inevitable consequences. I put together several pages of notes, working matters through step by step and giving examples of increasing complexity plus exercises in applying the principles. I'm glad to say that it worked and, interestingly enough, my wife worked her way through my notes and said that if only someone had bothered to explain things properly all those years ago life would have been a lot easier. And the practical use of algebra to the vast majority of people is what? Possibly none at all to the vast majority of people, but indispensable to any one involved with physics and many branches of engineering. You could say exactly the same about calculus yet its value is unquestioned in the disciplines just mentioned. Indeed. It's not a lot of use for a miserable ex-train driver though. It's not a lot of use for the vast majority of people then. I'm glad we agreed on that. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... ®i©ardo wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. But a newsgroup posting and a multi-billion pound contract are not even close to being of the same importance are they? Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. If I were a socialist, good or bad, you might have a point. As I'm not, you don't. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
®i©ardo wrote:
On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... ®i©ardo wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. It's pretty clear he doesn't give a toss either way, which very effectively demonstrates the monumental arrogance of the profoundly ignorant. He doesn't know, he doesn't care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't care about the consequences of not knowing. Not a winning combination. One can only hope that he is never placed in a position where his ignorance could cause harm to others. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
®i©ardo wrote:
On 10/10/2010 19:41, Bruce wrote: wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] Strange that you should say that, as I hesitated over whether or not to use the word "profession", relating to teaching, in an earlier posting. As if we needed to be reminded of the very low quality of the average "trained" teacher, a recent proposal that only people with a 2:2 honours degree (or higher grade) would be accepted for teacher training was shouted down on the basis that hardly anyone with a maths- or science-related qualification would then apply. None of my secondary maths or science teachers had a degree that was lower than a 2:1. About half had Firsts. And that was in the days when achieving a 2:1 required a far higher standard than now, and a First was very rare indeed. Today, a First is very common indeed, 2:1 is the norm and 2:2 degrees are handed out like confetti. Yet it is a widely-held belief that there would be a shortage of maths and science graduates applying for teacher training, presumably because so very few applying today have reached the 2:2 standard. This is a result of 13 years of Labour's dumbing down, contrary to Tony Blair's oft-repeated mantra that "Education, Education, Education" was his No.1 priority. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 20:44, Bruce wrote:
wrote: On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. It's pretty clear he doesn't give a toss either way, which very effectively demonstrates the monumental arrogance of the profoundly ignorant. He doesn't know, he doesn't care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't care about the consequences of not knowing. Not a winning combination. One can only hope that he is never placed in a position where his ignorance could cause harm to others. Superb succinct comment. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 10/10/2010 20:58, Bruce wrote:
wrote: On 10/10/2010 19:41, Bruce wrote: wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] Strange that you should say that, as I hesitated over whether or not to use the word "profession", relating to teaching, in an earlier posting. As if we needed to be reminded of the very low quality of the average "trained" teacher, a recent proposal that only people with a 2:2 honours degree (or higher grade) would be accepted for teacher training was shouted down on the basis that hardly anyone with a maths- or science-related qualification would then apply. None of my secondary maths or science teachers had a degree that was lower than a 2:1. About half had Firsts. And that was in the days when achieving a 2:1 required a far higher standard than now, and a First was very rare indeed. Today, a First is very common indeed, 2:1 is the norm and 2:2 degrees are handed out like confetti. Yet it is a widely-held belief that there would be a shortage of maths and science graduates applying for teacher training, presumably because so very few applying today have reached the 2:2 standard. This is a result of 13 years of Labour's dumbing down, contrary to Tony Blair's oft-repeated mantra that "Education, Education, Education" was his No.1 priority. Unfortunately it pre-dates those lost 13 years. My secondary education was from the mid-1950s, when "reading ritin' and riffmatic" were crucial to one's progress. It DID matter in those far off days. Ah well, it's the price of progress. As long as we dumb down the brightest of our children in the interests of equality, we'll have nothing to worry about, will we? LCD rules, OK! -- Moving things in still pictures |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 20:44, Bruce wrote: wrote: On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. It's pretty clear he doesn't give a toss either way, which very effectively demonstrates the monumental arrogance of the profoundly ignorant. He doesn't know, he doesn't care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't care about the consequences of not knowing. Not a winning combination. One can only hope that he is never placed in a position where his ignorance could cause harm to others. Superb succinct comment. Which is sadly inaccurate. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 11 Oct, 11:25, "Brimstone" wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 20:44, Bruce wrote: *wrote: On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: *wrote in message m... *wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. It's pretty clear he doesn't give a toss either way, which very effectively demonstrates the monumental arrogance of the profoundly ignorant. *He doesn't know, he doesn't care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't care about the consequences of not knowing. Not a winning combination. *One can only hope that he is never placed in a position where his ignorance could cause harm to others. Superb succinct comment. Which is sadly inaccurate. I've been struggling to work out why not learning punctuation at school is more likely to cause harm to others than not learning geography, or anything else that one might not have paid attention to in lessons or been taught badly. It's the worst hyperbole ever. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 11 Oct, 11:25, "Brimstone" wrote: "®i©ardo" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2010 20:44, Bruce wrote: wrote: On 10/10/2010 19:54, Brimstone wrote: wrote in message m... wrote: We'll be getting the "well, you know what I mean" response when it is pointed out that, by virtue of their illiteracy, someone has written utter scribble. When I used to lecture on English contract law I was forever telling the gormless scrotes - all of whom had "achieved" A* GCSE English, of course - that what they'd written meant something completely different to what they thought it meant. This, in contractual terms could have meant an utter disaster. Yet, throughout their schooling years punctuation and grammar had been totally ignored, perhaps because the students had been taught by illiterates. Still, given that now, it seems, the educational norm is to be illiterate - and innumerate, which is part of the same problem - I suppose we'll have to accept the NUT has achieved a measure of social equality in dumbing everybody down. My thoughts, exactly. I don't know which is worse - people who do not care how wrong they are, or people who do not know. In either case, the teaching "profession"* has an awful lot to answer for. [* Never was the word 'profession' so inappropriately applied.] What is worse are the people with nothing better to do that scribble interminably over a couple of mistakes. Quite obviously you and the PP believe that people who make honest mistakes, in a totally unimportant passage, should be shot. **** knows how you would react if it was a similar error in a multi-billion pound contract. Well, it would probably negate the contract, which demonstrates exactly why such things are of the utmost importance! Unless, of course, you can afford to throw billions of pounds by virtue of your ignorance or stupidity. Still, being a good Socialist (if there can be such a thing), it wouldn't worry you, would it, as it would be someone else's money anyway. It's pretty clear he doesn't give a toss either way, which very effectively demonstrates the monumental arrogance of the profoundly ignorant. He doesn't know, he doesn't care that he doesn't know, and he doesn't care about the consequences of not knowing. Not a winning combination. One can only hope that he is never placed in a position where his ignorance could cause harm to others. Superb succinct comment. Which is sadly inaccurate. I've been struggling to work out why not learning punctuation at school is more likely to cause harm to others than not learning geography, or anything else that one might not have paid attention to in lessons or been taught badly. Language, written and spoken, is the only subject taught in schools [1] which is used as a means of communicating information and ideas to others. If one does not use a form of language understood by those with whom one is attempting to communicate then one's efforts are not merely in vain they could cause harm both to oneself and to others. [1] For the sake of discussion I will accept that maths can also be used to communicate. It's the worst hyperbole ever. In the case of those who "go on" at length about errors in a Usenet posting when the overall context is clear, I agree. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
On 2010\10\11 12:37, Brimstone wrote:
Language, written and spoken, is the only subject taught in schools [1] which is used as a means of communicating information and ideas to others. If one does not use a form of language understood by those with whom one is attempting to communicate then one's efforts are not merely in vain they could cause harm both to oneself and to others. [1] For the sake of discussion I will accept that maths can also be used to communicate. Physics can be used to communicate too - the Yanks certainly got their message across in Hiroshima. |
Bus Drivers Indulging In Road Rage
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... On 2010\10\11 12:37, Brimstone wrote: Language, written and spoken, is the only subject taught in schools [1] which is used as a means of communicating information and ideas to others. If one does not use a form of language understood by those with whom one is attempting to communicate then one's efforts are not merely in vain they could cause harm both to oneself and to others. [1] For the sake of discussion I will accept that maths can also be used to communicate. Physics can be used to communicate too - the Yanks certainly got their message across in Hiroshima. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't physics a maths based discipline? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk