Jump to content

May I brighten someone's day ?


ernie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought the debate was over future policies, not current facts and figures. Obviously they have a bearing. But all the figures are there on the internet for anyone to see that wants. I thought the point of forums was not to simply repeat information we can easily find elsewhere, but to chat and exchange views about questions that obviously most of us like to keep an eye on, because one day it's likely to affect us. I think "vague suppositions, tenuous conclusions and a huge worry-bag of unspoken fears" is a bit harsh, Ernie. We know it's all speculation and opinion, but that doesn't mean it's of no interest or value does it? After all, you could say the same about everything that's said or written about the upcoming election - doesn't stop it being interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think "vague suppositions, tenuous conclusions and a huge worry-bag of unspoken fears" is a bit harsh, Ernie. We know it's all speculation and opinion, but that doesn't mean it's of no interest or value does it?

 

Absolutely of no interest or value to me, am I alone?

 

And whilst I deliberately did not raise the subject whilst in the UK for a week recently I did not hear one person speak of it even once. I can only conclude that those I came into contact with which was at all ends of the spectrum did not have worry bags of unspoken fears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ernie"]Hey Glueys - What a strange way you have of debating !!!!! You seem to rely on known, provable facts and figures instead of vague suppositions, tenuous conclusions and a huge worry-bag of unspoken fears blighting your judgement.

I love it . lol.[/quote]

It's the rigour of academe, Ernie: never posit an hypothesis, unless you can back up your theories with empiricism.

As many students discovered, to their chagrin,  when I was marking MBA papers!

Plus Business School training using the Harvard Business School Case Study model.

However, most of the rest, simply love wild suppositions, assumption and repeatedly parroting myths and urban legends until they are taken by a majority as "Fact"!

Most politicians clearly work on the basis of "Don't try and confuse the issue/s with facts! We already have a solution!"

I loved this one, BTW!

[quote user="EuroTrash"] The economic data and the facts are well known to everybody involved, they're not in question[/quote]

Well, that will be a first, then!

Except, it seems, a majority of both EU and UK politicians and journalists and supposed "Commentators and Analysts"!

I am minded to recalled Thatcher and the European Telecommunications Act; which she glibly and carelessly signed off.

And then went crazy, when Red Hot Dutch beamed really pornographic movies into the UK via satellite, flogging access cards in newsagents and etc.

Seemed no one had actually bothered to , err, read the small print; once again. And, let's remind ourselves, Thatcher was a lawyer!

Any more than did one Gordon Brown when as PM he signed off on the Lisbon Treaty... which again, let's remember, replaced the multiply rejected European Constitution Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I envy you being so unconcerned Chancer.

I guess I'm just a planner-aheader by nature, I like to pretend I know what to the future holds. I write lists of what work I need to finish by what time on what day, for weeks ahead, so that I know I'll meet all the deadlines. It doesn't work, obviously, because things keep changing so I have to tear the old list up and make a new one every day, but I don't feel secure if I don't have a list of things to do. I even like knowing what I'm going to have for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next few days. Us insecure people like to feel we have a strategy ready, it gives us the illusion of being in control. Sad I know!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I loved this one, BTW!

EuroTrash wrote:

The economic data and the facts are well known to everybody involved, they're not in question

Well, that will be a first, then!"

The point being, Gluey, that at our insignificant level, what we're speculating about is what the politicians WILL decide, not what they SHOULD decide. I appreciate that you have sussed out exactly how Brexit should be handled, but unfortunately it's not your job. So there's no point, really, in arguing facts and figures and how they should be interpreted and coming to a different conclusion from May & Co. It's more relevant to look at how they are reacting to the facts and figures and which direction that's likely to take them in. What they think may be wrong but that's not the point, the point is, that's what they're going to build their policies on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the point about politicians;  as Gluestick pointed out Thatcher 'slipped up';  we were supposed to have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - rejected out of hand by several countries, so the UK took fright - and Brown skulked in a shadowy corner, on his own, signing away more of our sovereignty.

But the one who really takes the biscuit was Ken Clarke - who blithely said there was nothing wrong with Maastrict Treaty;  he would sign it 'regardless' - and then admitted he'd NEVER READ IT PROPERLY anyway.   Cavalier - or treachery ?

So that's what our so-called politicians have done with the sovereignty of the UK, it's Common Law, Habeus Corpus, Bill of Rights - just handed them over, willy-nilly, no thought of the consequences... and to the detriment of our UK Constitution, even causing HM Queen some concerns at one time.

No-one is interested in my opinions, but for what they are worth - if you can bear reading them - is that the civil service has had an easy ride just implementing and gold-plating Diktats from the eu; they can no longer think for themselves or be rigorous in defending the UK's position.

MPs who really don't have much power to alter anything that comes rolling in the the eu - 70% of our Laws now made in Brussels.   Figures sneered at by Clegg but subsequently proved correct; - who also denied there were any plans for an eu army........... how much egg on his face is there now;  was he wrong, niaive - or LYING to us.   Know which I think;  know what the HoC have been doing for the last 40 years.

Will never, ever, forget or forgive Hath - and his public admission, on television, that he had LIED to the UK voters.... and from that incident stems a lot of people's views about the eu, and MPs.

Trust them - not one of them - never.    So regardless of what 'spin' comes out of an MPs mouth, or a PMs, or a Downing Street spokesperson, or anyone.... don't really trust what they say...

Which leaves me in a quandary, knowing they've lied - but just hoping that Ms May really will try to do her best for the UK - it's citizens and it's economy.

And apparently we don't even need to trigger Article 50 if report in yesterdays' paper on a statement by internalal lawyer and expert on eu law...... we just go ahead and leave and trade under the WTO rules.

Had never thought the Chinese curse of 'May you live in interesting times' - would be quite so interesting !!

Chessie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="EuroTrash"]

The point being, Gluey, that at our insignificant level, what we're speculating about is what the politicians WILL decide, not what they SHOULD decide. I appreciate that you have sussed out exactly how Brexit should be handled, but unfortunately it's not your job. So there's no point, really, in arguing facts and figures and how they should be interpreted and coming to a different conclusion from May & Co. It's more relevant to look at how they are reacting to the facts and figures and which direction that's likely to take them in. What they think may be wrong but that's not the point, the point is, that's what they're going to build their policies on.[/quote]

The highlighted bit: Aye, there's the rub! (As the Bard quoth).

Being anapolitical, myself, I am only really concerned with the econometrics. 'Cos that is much of what I do.

What amuses me are the varying and stoutly vehement opinions flying around.

As a matter of interest, I wonder how many participating on this thread have actually read Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty? Well, to save those with interest the fag, here it is:

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2.

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European

Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the

European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement

with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking

account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of

the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be

concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified

majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3.

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the

date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,

two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the

European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,

unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of

paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the

Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate

in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions

concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in

accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of

the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the

Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure

referred to in Article 49.

________________________________

What is perhaps of much interest to myself, requires a little story.

I majored in International Trade at B School with a focus on what was then the EEC.

At the time, Britain was in its "Run In" period (Transitional amelioration of reciprocal customs duties and charges). One of our External Lecturers, was the senior Customs Officer (it was then of course HM Customs and Excise) and he had been sent to Brussels as the UK's Point Man to negotiate how when and why. Problem was he spoke zero French; and all the negotiations were in French! Ergo the Brussels Nomenclature as it was called (big boring tome, yuk) took forever to negotiate and agree.

Despite the fervent Brexit supporters screaming "Brexit Now!" and the increasingly virulent angst emerging from the EU leaders, this process will take a long time.

Just the training and production of fresh new Customs manuals for officers at Dover and Calais etc, will not be a short process; plus all the discarded procedures will have to be restored. Imagine the bloody chaos at the ports!

If these (following) positions of war are anything to go by, then clearly, the last bit if Para 3 will surely be invoked. By both sides...

(apols. I simply do not have the time, today to turn them into URLs as HTML.)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-idUKKCN12K1AT

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-hollande-idUKKCN12629T

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-uk-must-leave-eu-by-2019-theresa-may-martin-schulz-european-parliament-president-a7323411.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-juncker-idUSKBN1300LA

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-juncker-idUKKBN1331F5

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-idUKKCN124146

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-idUKKBN12X14L

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-idUSKBN13A1PL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="EuroTrash"]I envy you being so unconcerned Chancer. I guess I'm just a planner-aheader by nature, I like to pretend I know what to the future holds. I write lists of what work I need to finish by what time on what day, for weeks ahead, so that I know I'll meet all the deadlines. It doesn't work, obviously, because things keep changing so I have to tear the old list up and make a new one every day, but I don't feel secure if I don't have a list of things to do. I even like knowing what I'm going to have for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next few days. Us insecure people like to feel we have a strategy ready, it gives us the illusion of being in control. Sad I know![/quote]

 

I have walked in your shoes Eurotrash for many years, I have changed, it was a conscious effort, took a lot of self discipline over many years but eventually it becomes second nature, I was motivated having seen how others lives were plagued by their inner stress and angst about events that they had no control over.

 

First thing I had to do was to step off the consumer/working for a boss/working for customers merry go round, eventually not having any plans became completely liberating, 11 years later even close friends and people that should get me and my new life by now ask me what my deadline is, its the only time that I see the typically French look of incomprehension on their face, I have told them I dont have a plan or a deadline, they say but you must have and I say "why!" I have to ask it repeatedly tell them to put themselves in my situation and ask what would a plan or a deadline achieve, they finally get it.

 

So underneath it all I am creating my own illusion as much as you are, it was put severely to the test when one morning I learned that every penny of my savings and disposable cash was lost with the failure of an Icelandic bank, I am pleased to say that I got through it without displaying the negative emotions that were within despite some people sticking it to me, the sort that get pleasure from kicking someone when they are down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like" to Chancer's post (why isn't there a button).

"Just the training and production of fresh new Customs manuals for officers at Dover and Calais etc, will not be a short process; plus all the discarded procedures will have to be restored. Imagine the bloody chaos at the ports!"

Let's hope somebody saved an electronic copy.

Except it will probably be on a stack of floppy disks. Maybe even Amstrad disks - anyone still got a working Amstrad word processor sitting in the attic ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="EuroTrash"]

Let's hope somebody saved an electronic copy.

Except it will probably be on a stack of floppy disks. Maybe even Amstrad disks - anyone still got a working Amstrad word processor sitting in the attic ?[/quote]

Well, I have an old Amstrad 1640 (8086 CPU) sat in the loft....... with a hard drive, no less! [:-))]

However, in the mid-1970s it would probably have been something like an IBM, DEC, or similar system.

Portable media?

Err, no. Uless it was 8 inch floppy disks. anyone have an 8 inch external floppy drive....??? I do have a few blank 5/14" disks kicking around somewhere. However they weren't introduced until circa 1978 by Shugart at the request of Wang (WP only systems).

Anyone here good with FORTRAN or COBOL???

[Www]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Chancer"]despite some people sticking it to me, the sort that get pleasure from kicking someone when they are down.[/quote]

Schadenfreude, Chancer. The act of gaining much pleasure from the misfortunes of another.

Sick, IMHO and typical of den Krauts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, sticking to the figures and statistics, very admirable, TO A POINT[:P]

You need to ask:  who collected the figures, to whom are the figures aimed, for what purpose are the figures collected.

So, an example: the government has collected unemployment figures.  The figures are high. How will they massage the figures?  All right then, we will say that anyone who is unemployed for more than 6 months will now have to undergo some sort of training compulsorily or they lose their benefits.  Figures for unemployment go down because they are now classified as being in training.

Next, anyone who is unemployed for more than 6 months and cannot, for whatever reason, be accepted into a training or apprentice programme?  Clearly then, they are disabled.  Therefore, we put them into long-term disable figures and give them disable living allowance and get them off the register for unemployment figures.

The above sounds familiar?  You bet they do because various governments have done that, haven't they?

Another example:  people with, say, pancreatic cancer have less than x percentage chance of surviving for 5 years.  Next, someone with pancreatic cancer, survive for 6 years, against all the odds.  How relevant are the survival rates then?  And, if you are the one with pancreatic cancer, you might want to go with hopes of survival because, after all, someone did survive and buck the trend, didn't they?

Turkeys vote for Christmas?  No, OF COURSE not!  British people vote for Brexit, NO, not possible? So Mr Cameron and Co didn't think they needed to make plans for Brexit.  Blacks and women, or to double the odds, BLACK WOMEN vote for Trump?  NEVER!  But we now know that millions did just that.

So Gluey, I am a little surprised that you set such store by academically produced figures.  Firstly, academic has another meaning than impartial and that is that they belong in the realms of Academe and may have no bearing whatsoever to real life.

Here is a personal anecdote, just to explain where I stand on this.  I was one of those unfortunate people who, when young, did not know what I wanted to be when I grew up.  I was as good at science subjects as I was at arts subjects when at school.  Come secondary school, I had to choose.  I chose to be in the arts stream.  Then, years later, I thought I'd try out "the road not taken" and studied a science subject at university.  The point I am making is that human beings are so much more complex than can be explained by mere figures and statistics.  They are imaginative, intuitive, have hunches which do often come off.  As ET has said, they speculate, they WOULD think "what if"?

I think I should change my tag line to be "Always expect the unexpected"...............not original, I admit, but whoever said it first did have a very valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you can always find statistics and studies to support any point of view. "Academic debate' usually involves putting forward your argument based on the strength of that evidence. This requires the ability to evaluate the quality of evidence based on the criteria for your particular field. So, for example, I might be pretty good at evaluating the evidence for the effectiveness of a therapy, but only be able to evaluate evidence on other subjects using general principals. Even within experts there is genuine disagreement because nothing is ever black and white and nothing can ever be proved one way or the other. A poor academic argument will only present the evidence from one point of view and will not consider all aspects. In academic terms it is impossible to argue for or against brexit..you can only point to the probability of various outcomes. So I don't really take much notice of links to various places that present odd bits of information or opinions. I prefer to read widely from a number of sources and try to make my opinions as informed as they can be (and no I don't only read things that support my view..I try and read a selection of them all as long as they are from reliable sources)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quite amazing conclusions about science herein!

Science, in its purest sense is simply concerned with the absolute.

If for example, a chemist or a physicist postulates a conclusion, then this must be based upon replicable result. Others can therefore test a claimed outcome and achieve precisely the same result. It is called peer validation.

Perhaps the most famous series of  leading edge research experiments might be the Manhattan District's nuclear physics.

The resultant worked. A few scientists working on the project, Enrico Fermi for one, believed once a chain reaction was started and sustained, it would become completely unstoppable and blow up the World! Fortunately for us, he and his group of like minds were wrong!

Medical science, sadly, tends to work on probable outcomes, not absolutes.

Unless and until any proposed course of treatment has moved from possibility to mainly definite success.

Antibiotics for a bacterial infection, for example; with the obvious caveat, over-prescription causes resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find a post where anybody drew any amazing conclusions about science.

The only reference to science I can find is that Mint read science at uni - which in itself is only slightly amazing because lots of people do, although I'm sure (s)he did amazingly well.

Have I missed something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Antibiotics for a bacterial infection, for example; with the obvious caveat, over-prescription causes resistance.

[/quote]

And the same goes for statistics!  You need to use them with care and only to predict a likely outcome and not to conclusively prove anything in the absence of other evidence. In the case of over-use or -prescription, you engender resistance in your audience[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...