Discussion:
completely non TA related
Add Reply
Btms
2018-04-26 10:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.

I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.

Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.

I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!

Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.

I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.

Tell me, AIAOU?

Snifffff.
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-26 10:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
Language:

"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
therefore, he will say something like this:
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."

ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)

They make me cross.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Btms
2018-04-26 10:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
We could start a list?

“Lessons have been learned”. Unsaid “but will not be acted upon once the
fuss settles down” or the next wet behind the ears inadequate is promoted
beyond ability.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike
2018-04-26 11:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
We could start a list?
“Lessons have been learned”. Unsaid “but will not be acted upon once the
fuss settles down” or the next wet behind the ears inadequate is promoted
beyond ability.
Or as Curmudgeonly Ed Reardon says: ‘The twelve year olds running the BBC’.
--
Toodle Pip
SODAM
2018-04-26 12:30:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
We could start a list?
“Lessons have been learned”. Unsaid “but will not be acted upon once the
fuss settles down” or the next wet behind the ears inadequate is promoted
beyond ability.
The one that really riles me is, “he denies any wrongdoing”. This usually
translates as “ there is not a law against this specific practice of our
client, so it is not illegal”. Perhaps not but it is often immoral,
unethical and does not relate to any rules of proper conduct. After denying
wrongdoing, it is strange how many of the perpetrators of what is certainly
not right doing leave the company “to avoid being a distraction “ until the
fuss dies down. After that, I expect many slide into another niche where
they continue to do no wrong.

I know someone well who worked for a person very heavily implicated in the
financial crash. His name was briefly in the public domain. The fuss died
down. He continues in the same area of work. He was never charged with
anything.
--
SODAM
The thinking umrat’s choice for editor
Kate B
2018-04-26 13:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SODAM
Post by Btms
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation. Pat needs one to get Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres. We have to raise our own funds and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well. Husbad was clear it wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed. Now TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn. What a silly statement. The
charity’s employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end. Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible. My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
We could start a list?
“Lessons have been learned”. Unsaid “but will not be acted upon once the
fuss settles down” or the next wet behind the ears inadequate is promoted
beyond ability.
The one that really riles me is, “he denies any wrongdoing”. This usually
translates as “ there is not a law against this specific practice of our
client, so it is not illegal”. Perhaps not but it is often immoral,
unethical and does not relate to any rules of proper conduct. After denying
wrongdoing, it is strange how many of the perpetrators of what is certainly
not right doing leave the company “to avoid being a distraction “ until the
fuss dies down. After that, I expect many slide into another niche where
they continue to do no wrong.
I know someone well who worked for a person very heavily implicated in the
financial crash. His name was briefly in the public domain. The fuss died
down. He continues in the same area of work. He was never charged with
anything.
Even worse is 'He refutes the allegation'. He generally does no such
thing or anywhere near.
--
Kate B
London
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-26 18:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kate B
Even worse is 'He refutes the allegation'. He generally does no such
thing or anywhere near.
We seem to have lost "refute" as a word meaning "prove to be untrue". It
is now used almost universally as a synonym for "deny". Another useful
word bites the dust.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
steveski
2018-04-26 22:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Kate B
Even worse is 'He refutes the allegation'. He generally does no such
thing or anywhere near.
We seem to have lost "refute" as a word meaning "prove to be untrue". It
is now used almost universally as a synonym for "deny". Another useful
word bites the dust.
<sigh>
--
Steveski
Mike
2018-04-27 07:46:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Kate B
Even worse is 'He refutes the allegation'. He generally does no such
thing or anywhere near.
We seem to have lost "refute" as a word meaning "prove to be untrue". It
is now used almost universally as a synonym for "deny". Another useful
word bites the dust.
I can’t refute that.
--
Toodle Pip
Btms
2018-04-26 13:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Snipped
Post by SODAM
Post by Btms
We could start a list?
“Lessons have been learned”. Unsaid “but will not be acted upon once the
fuss settles down” or the next wet behind the ears inadequate is promoted
beyond ability.
The one that really riles me is, “he denies any wrongdoing”. This usually
translates as “ there is not a law against this specific practice of our
client, so it is not illegal”. Perhaps not but it is often immoral,
unethical and does not relate to any rules of proper conduct. After denying
wrongdoing, it is strange how many of the perpetrators of what is certainly
not right doing leave the company “to avoid being a distraction “ until the
fuss dies down. After that, I expect many slide into another niche where
they continue to do no wrong.
Snipped.

Yup!

And on the other side it is rather unwise imho to act on a police tipoff
and broadcast to the nation without a demonstrable reason supported by
fact.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-28 22:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SODAM
The one that really riles me is, “he denies any wrongdoing”. This usually
translates as “ there is not a law against this specific practice of our
client, so it is not illegal”. Perhaps not but it is often immoral,
unethical and does not relate to any rules of proper conduct.
We pay our legal department to come up with schemes so that we can gain
all the benefits of outright criminality, whilst not straying (too far)
outside the legal framework.
--
Sam Plusnet
Jim Easterbrook
2018-04-26 12:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
That's pure Sir Humphrey to my ears.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-26 12:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
That's pure Sir Humphrey to my ears.
Oh yes, the script-writers for YM and YPM were geniuses at it: I
remember particularly "high-fat offal tube", and something like "the one
who - your present interlocutor - is accustomed to using the
perpendicular pronoun".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have
met."
- John J. Kinyon
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-26 12:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
It's the not responding to concerns that really bugs me (never mind
"properly", they don't usually address them _at all_). And it's not PR:
if anything, such avoidances (of the subject, not just responsibility)
don't IMO do _any_ good for the reputation of the avoiding company, but
are all the more infuriating for that - it's basically "we can get away
with it, so we will". Combined with the _pretence_ that they haven't
understood what you are asking them.
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Btms
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't. For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but
the credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems
and criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but
they sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue. It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
[]
Post by Sid Nuncius
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
Indeed.

When TEFLing (teaching English as a foreign language), one of the things
my mother did (I don't _think_ it was her idea, but part of the
curriculum) was give the class a piece of text, and ask them to reduce
it. Many of the statement-generators in British
business/institutions/etc. would benefit from some practice of this
nature - one sometimes wonders if they actually are trained in the other
direction, though I suspect it's more that once you start to obfuscate,
it becomes second nature and you actually have to work hard to stop
yourself.
Post by Sid Nuncius
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
Orwell was good at language!
Post by Sid Nuncius
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing
whatsoever to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls
upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all
the details." (What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
We could do with a "management-speak bingo"-like processor: when one of
these statements is read out, they should play a "ding!" sound each time
one of these phrases appears, and highlight them in red when showing
them on-screen.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.
LFS
2018-04-26 16:34:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Apols but I just want to vent but not on fb.
I think Brian needs a good PR Company to advise him on the waste issue.
Shula also needs one to redeem her reputation.  Pat needs one to get
Olwen
on board with organic farming.
Its the TSB fiasco. Husbad is Treasurer of a local branch of a National
Charity which runs local centres.    We have to raise our own funds
and we
have a couple of staff (its not admin) who are not highly paid but rely
upon their monthly pay.
I was miffed when TSB announced all was well.  Husbad was clear it
wasn’t.
Can’t get online at all and the local branch has recently closed.  Now
TSB
have acknowledge this was not true and called in IBM specialists and saying
nobody will be charged for going overdrawn.  What a silly statement.  The
charity’s  employees don’t bank with TSB and don’t have balances that
will
cover their fixed outgoings at month end.  Nor can they be sure a cheque
will be cleared in time for their account to stay in credit, so they may
suffer a financial penalty!
Husbad is planning to pay the salaries himself and reclaim when this is
sorted but there must be lots of folk where this won’t be possible.  My
whinge is the common PR device of the Corporate world regularly making
statements that don’t actually alleviate the problem for folk at the coal
face or properly respond to concerns.
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media,  is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
No, you aren't.  For me it's not the credibility of news per se, but the
credibility of institutional and corporate responses to problems and
criticism, i.e. the bland "no one was available for interview but they
sent this statement" bollocks with a load of waffle which doesn't
address the real point at issue.  It is a standard tactic now and
reminds me of Orwell's brilliant analysis in Politics and the English
"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been
amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words
falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering
up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like
a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
Universities have been full of this rubbish for many years, longer than
the corporate world where it is now endemic. When I was young I used to
have the energy to engage in arguments about the language in university
documents but soon there were more important issues to fight about.
ISTM that instead of "a mass of Latin words" we now get a mass of
meaning-free cliché ("exhausted idioms") like "fully committed to" and
"steps have already been taken" and the like which do nothing whatsoever
to clarify what really needs to be clarified, and "falls upon the facts
like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details."
(What a brilliant analogy!)
They make me cross.
It's all about avoidance of blame, which is what risk management has
fundamentally become.

I was invited to speak recently at an event held at the posh London head
office of a major company. I was asked to arrive early for a
pre-meeting. As I entered the building, a receptionist thrust an iPad
into my hand. She conducted me to the meeting room and told me she would
be back to collect the iPad when I had finished with it so that she
could tick me off on her list.

The pre-meeting was under way as I sat puzzling over the iPad and
wondering what I was supposed to do with it. The man in charge asked if
I had got to the bit about the stairs yet and everyone laughed. It
slowly dawned on me that what was playing on the iPad was a video about
safety, rather like the sort you get on aircraft.

The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"

At the end of the event, there was a panel session and the chair
(ghastly woman who kept referring to me as either Lara or "the Prof")
asked all the speakers to identify three important issues relating to
the topic of the event. This was unexpected and of course she picked on
me first. I could only come up with two so she said she would ask the
others who had had more time and then come back to me. I ended up
talking about risk management being designed to deflect blame and gave
as an example the slightly odd safety briefing I'd received.

Not the most tactful idea. The chap from the host company leapt to his
feet and insisted that it was all about the comfort of staff and
visitors and nothing to do with trying to avoid responsibility. Which
was a slightly difficult end to the event.

And, in case you are wondering, we were escorted around the building via
lifts and I never even saw any stairs.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Fenny
2018-04-26 17:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.

When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
--
Fenny
Btms
2018-04-26 18:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
Not just me then! Thank you for asking.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Steve Hague
2018-04-29 09:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
Not just me then! Thank you for asking.
One of my un-favourites is when an organisation, particularly government
bodies, are accused of having got something wrong they don't address the
issue, but instead list things they've allegedly got right, or say how
much money they've spent on it.
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
LFS
2018-04-29 10:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
Not just me then!  Thank you for asking.
One of my un-favourites is when an organisation, particularly government
bodies, are accused of having got something wrong they don't address the
issue, but instead list things they've allegedly got right, or say how
much money they've spent on it.
A tactic now known as "whataboutery", I think.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
steveski
2018-04-26 22:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
--
Steveski

[1] Down, Britters!
Btms
2018-04-27 07:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
Is that MV? Or should igmc?
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike
2018-04-27 08:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
Is that MV? Or should igmc?
Probably due to the narrow bunks....
--
Toodle Pip
BrritSki
2018-04-27 09:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
-- Steveski [1] Down, Britters!
Down ? I'm not a matelot, bro....
Btms
2018-04-27 19:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
-- Steveski [1] Down, Britters!
Down ? I'm not a matelot, bro....
That’s MV shurely. Go and sit on the naughty step this minute.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
LFS
2018-04-27 07:56:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places. It would have
been clearer if it had said - as my mum used to - "Hold on to the
banisters!"
Unless you were holding on with both hands all the time, what happened
when you lifted up a foot and only had 2 points of contact with the
stairs.
Exactly. The wording was odd. And the tone even odder. I fully expected
the staircases to be policed!
Post by Fenny
When I had lessons in ladder work, we were told 3 points of contact at
all times, so you can lift a hand or a foot off the ladder, but not at
the same time.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
krw
2018-04-27 08:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move? Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move. What crass nonsense.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Chris J Dixon
2018-04-27 08:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move? Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move. What crass nonsense.
It can only work on a narrow stairway where you can reach a
handrail on both sides. Presumably nobody ever moves round the
building carrying anything?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Mike
2018-04-27 10:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by krw
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or down
stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move? Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move. What crass nonsense.
It can only work on a narrow stairway where you can reach a
handrail on both sides. Presumably nobody ever moves round the
building carrying anything?
Chris
That’s the job of the ‘Intern’.;-)
--
Toodle Pip
Jenny M Benson
2018-04-27 10:50:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
That’s the job of the ‘Intern’.;-)
I read that immediately after
Post by Mike
The Navy maxim was 'one hand for the Navy and one hand for me' [1]
-- Steveski [1] Down, Britters!
Down ? I'm not a matelot, bro.... "

Very apt, I thought!
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
Mike Ruddock
2018-04-27 09:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Well it is a bit like the notice to be seen on certain doors: "This door
to be locked shut at all times."

Mike Ruddock
Mike
2018-04-27 10:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Ruddock
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Well it is a bit like the notice to be seen on certain doors: "This door
to be locked shut at all times."
Mike Ruddock
‘This door is alarmed’ (There-there door, calm down now.’)
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2018-04-27 13:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:50:23 +0100, Mike Ruddock
Post by Mike Ruddock
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Well it is a bit like the notice to be seen on certain doors: "This door
to be locked shut at all times."
Humphrey Lyttleton: The box of biscuits which says "Open other end" - it
never is.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-28 22:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times, then
you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required a
signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the building
who might suffer some misfortune.
--
Sam Plusnet
steveski
2018-04-28 23:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times, then
you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required a
signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the building
who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
--
Steveski
BrritSki
2018-04-29 06:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times, then
you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required a
signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the building
who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
Btms
2018-04-29 07:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times, then
you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required a
signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the building
who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling. BTN BTN BTN.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Jenny M Benson
2018-04-29 09:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up or
down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times, then
you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required a
signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the building
who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling. BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
steveski
2018-04-29 19:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Btms
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling. BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
--
Steveski
BrritSki
2018-04-29 19:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Btms
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling. BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
It needed spelling out, but thanks for the feedline :)
Sam Plusnet
2018-04-29 20:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling.  BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
It needed spelling out, but thanks for the feedline   :)
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.

(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-30 03:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling.  BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
It needed spelling out, but thanks for the feedline   :)
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
Nor yet an English one ... I think.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

An act like Morecambe and Wise happens once in a lifetime. Why did it have to
happen in mine? - Bernie Winters quoted by Barry Cryer, RT 2013/11/30-12/6
BrritSki
2018-04-30 06:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling.  BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
It needed spelling out, but thanks for the feedline   :)
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
It isn't ? WTF am I doing here then ? :)
Sid Nuncius
2018-04-30 07:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
It isn't ?  WTF am I doing here then ?    :)
Well, not TF anyway.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Btms
2018-04-30 07:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
It isn't ?  WTF am I doing here then ?    :)
Well, not TF anyway.
😏
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Jenny M Benson
2018-04-30 09:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and
Brritters clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an
Argentinian bordello.)
It isn't ?  WTF am I doing here then ? :)
Well, not TF anyway.
It's very rare for me to L*OL* when on my own, but that one did it!
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
Serena Blanchflower
2018-04-30 10:49:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sam Plusnet
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and
Brritters clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an
Argentinian bordello.)
It isn't ?  WTF am I doing here then ? :)
Well, not TF anyway.
It's very rare for me to L*OL* when on my own, but that one did it!
And here!
--
Best wishes, Serena
The moment one gives close attention to anything, even a blade of grass,
it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnificent world in
itself (Henry Miller)
Btms
2018-04-30 07:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sam Plusnet
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
It isn't ? WTF am I doing here then ? :)
Hallucinating?
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris McMillan
2018-04-30 10:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by steveski
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by BrritSki
Post by steveski
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by LFS
The bit about the stairs instructed everyone that, when going up
or down stairs, one had to touch the staircase in three places.
How do you move?  Two feet on steps and one hand on Minnie - it is
impossible therefore to actually move.  What crass nonsense.
Certainly not!
If you fail to maintain those three points of contact at all times,
then you have violated the safety agreement (which probably required
a signature at some point) thus making you personally liable for any
accident which may befall you - or indeed anyone else in the
building who might suffer some misfortune.
9/11 anyone?
Yebbut some of those people didn't use either the stairs or the lift !
That is appalling.  BTN BTN BTN.
It is indeed appalling - the best of BT!
Damn yer eyes, Britters! I thought that I'd get for the 9/11 comment but
fair play to you :-)
It needed spelling out, but thanks for the feedline   :)
Joint nomination I think.
It takes two to tango.
(If I have created an image in umrat's minds of Steveski and Brritters
clasped together in a tango, I apologise - this isn't an Argentinian
bordello.)
Rotflmao!

Sincerely Chris
LFS
2018-04-26 15:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I am reaching a point where my cynicism for the credibility of news, way
beyond the stuff on social media, is reaching monumental proportions.
Tell me, AIAOU?
Snifffff.
No, you aren't. The BBC has become useless for news. I am considering
reviving my subscription to the FT as it seems to be the only timely,
reliable and reasonably objective source.

I am suffering what I have defined as an epistemological crisis. I seem
to be expected to have an opinion on a whole raft of issues about which
I find it impossible to opine as I don't and can't know anything about
them.

This began before the referendum when I was trying desperately to find
some hard facts - or in the absence of such facts, some clear arguments
on either side. I cast my vote but I'm still not sure if I made the
right decision: my rationale was entirely emotional.

I am currently watching the debate on the Customs Union. Much passion
and some apparently sound arguments. But there are few people in the
chamber and none of the people making decisions seem to be present.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Loading...