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

"®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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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?

Basil Jet wrote:

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.


Surprisingly, the Americans *didn't* actually get their message across
in Hiroshima. Their "communication" had to be repeated at Nagasaki
before the message got across to the Japanese that they were beaten.

The idea that language is the only subject taught in schools that is
used as a means of communicating information and ideas to others is of
course nonsense. One of the most powerful means of communication is
through the visual arts. Drama is also a powerful means of
communication that can be partially or completely non-verbal.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Basil Jet wrote:

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.


Surprisingly, the Americans *didn't* actually get their message across
in Hiroshima. Their "communication" had to be repeated at Nagasaki
before the message got across to the Japanese that they were beaten.

The idea that language is the only subject taught in schools that is
used as a means of communicating information and ideas to others is of
course nonsense. One of the most powerful means of communication is
through the visual arts. Drama is also a powerful means of
communication that can be partially or completely non-verbal.

Is drama any use when applying for an office or production line job?

Bruce wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:


Physics can be used to communicate too - the Yanks certainly got their
message across in Hiroshima.


Surprisingly, the Americans *didn't* actually get their message across
in Hiroshima. Their "communication" had to be repeated at Nagasaki
before the message got across to the Japanese that they were beaten.


IIRC, the Japanese got the Hiroshima message just fine, and probably
would've surrendered given a bit more time. Nagasaki was sending a
totally different message: telling the Soviets that the first nuke
wasn't a fluke.