Access to walking areas

"KRO" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bernie Hughes" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:BJI6c.24850$F.8688@news-
binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject
of concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t
stirring seems to come from people who belong to the
walking fraternity. Where should I raise the subject
IYO? alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?

We don't care where you raise it, as long as it's
somewhere else. It's a private feud between yourself &
the RA. Take it up with them, stop

bothering

Quoted message said:

urw with loud-mouthed & opinionated non-walking [censored].

You're not doing your own side of the argument any good
by the way. I'd

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

opinion whatsoever on 4x4s till I read a few of your
apocalyptic posts.

Now

Quoted message said:

I despise them. Myself & KRO have argued about
practically every

subject

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that's come up on this newsgroup, but even we agree on
this! So back

under

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the bridge for you.

Bernard! You can be so sweet at times :-)

Indeed. I'm in a new Goodwill to all Men phase, mainly as a
result of receiving the new Graham Tops booklet from TAC
through the post.

Cordially yours,
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's OK then. It's their being worn as garments that I
object to! Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?

It's recommended by Poucher.

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
It's their being worn as garments that I object to!

Quoted message said:

Anyway, *why* do they wear red socks?

I think Tom Weir is the original role model & trend setter
in this respect. Cross-referenced under Bobble Hats also.
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

Michael Farthing said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK. There are scientific procedures that enable us to
determine the roundness of the Earth. Granted, the
fundamental philosophical underpinning of the scientific
method is shaky, but, for now perhaps we are able to
accept its basic validity. What similar reliable
mechanism can we use to determine an absolute moral
value? (and I amend my original word 'decide' here in
deference to your persuasive argument)

Whether there is a reliable mechanism to establish it is a
completely separate question from whether it exists!
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
reliable way of determining the world's roundness. Would
that affect its objective validity? I think not!

There is more than one point at which the absolutism
exists. 'Right' has more than one aspect: there is the
label itself and the abstract 'ideal'. For the label (or
word) 'right' to be treated as an absolute it must be
absolutely associated with the 'ideal' it is labelling
(which ideal is henceforth capitalised). If the 'ideal'
'RIGHT' exists absolutely but we are unable to absolutely
associate the label to it, then the label itself is not
absolute. That association is where the determinism becomes
required. So if, for the sake of argument, there is an
absolute concept of 'RIGHT' but we cannot say in any
instance whether our label 'right' is correctly referencing
it then the label 'right' is not referencing an absolute. A
universe with absolutes that cannot be determined is
isomorphic to a universe of relatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem (well, one of the problems) with subjectivism
is that it reduces our criticism of eg. (to take a
deliberately extreme case) Brady and Hindley's actions to
an expression of dislike, on a par with one's liking or
disliking coffee.

Because something is a problem does not affect its
veracity. It is a problem that I cannot get into Lancaster
in the morning in less than an hour because of the traffic.
That does not affect the truth of the assertion.

I have not said that there is no general consensus over
moral values in a large number of instances: there clearly
is. However, this consensus is not an absolute but merely
provides an inertial bulk of common thinking that provides
a workable environment in which the concept can be applied.
This is no different from many other similarly relative
concepts. Goods have no absolute monetary value, but there
are societal norms that make monetary value a workable
system. Similarly, ones ability at boxing [where there are
several absolute measures (or used to be, at any rate) :-)]
or on a larger scale, the Time-Space continuum.

Quoted message said:

We are, if subjectivism is followed, not saying anything
true or false when we say he was wrong - merely that we
would have acted otherwise because of our preferences.

We are using a shorthand that can be generally accepted,
but in an absolute sense we are not saying anything true
or false.

Even if we accept your view that absolute right exists but
we may not be able to determine it in all instances we are
actually in the same quandary. Such an assertion, though
indeed being either true or false, would not get us very
far because we wouldn't know which of the two it was. If
something can be absolute but not determinable it might
just as well be relative for all the use that is.

Quoted message said:

I recommend C S Lewis's 'The Poison of Subjectivism' (he
was religious, but that's not essential to his position).

It can go in the queue - somewhere around 9871. It's quite
an interesting discussion on the Net, but not for extended
study. And one has to make summary decisions about what
might be worth reading. I'm afraid Mr Lewis has long ago
been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

You say that religion is not essential to his position. The
problem with Lewis is that his weddedness to his religion
interferes with his judgement: indeed the very title
suggests that he views the philosophical concept as a
threat that must be countered rather an exploration for
truth. However, the comment brings to the fore something I
have not yet put forward: that any concept of the existence
of an absolute rightness would require a philosophical
basis as justification. That is, what I would term a
religion. 'right' does not label a concept governed by
physical law - it is something outside the physical
universe. For 'RIGHT' to exist absolutely (without twisting
its everyday meaning beyond recognition) there must be an
absolute provider of that meaning. It requires God.

It's high time this subject drifted to cameras.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

"Michael Farthing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
. For 'RIGHT' to exist absolutely (without twisting

Quoted message said:

its everyday meaning beyond recognition) there must be an
absolute provider of that meaning. It requires God.

I'm not sure that it does require God. It just tends to come
bundled with God for historical reasons.

As I understand it, the argument between yourself & Paul is
based on a false premise: it assumes that either there is a
fixed objective moral framework (Position 1 -Paul's view) or
that moral reasoning is a purely subjective derivation from
cultural practice (Position 2- Michael's view). This
objective/subjective dichotomy is unhelpful; it's not a
Yes/No question. There is a middle position, in which a
moral judgement derives its strength from the width of
perspective taken by the judge. The wider the perspective,
the greater coherence & more certain application of the
judgement.

This position differs from Position 1 (& agrees with
Position 2) insofar as it denies that the human mind can
ever have access to a neutral 'outside the game' position
from where an absolute inherent moral framework could be
witnessed in action; all judgements are human judgments, &
all human judgements are contextual.

It differs from Position 2 (& agrees with Position 1)
insofar as it denies that all human judgements are equally
subjective. A judgement which can be shown to depend
entirely on the interests of a given Ego will be of limited
value. As a judgement is gradually cleansed of Ego factors
it becomes of greater accuracy & value. This stripping away
of Ego factors can be thought of as a widening of
perspective. A judgement made from the valley bottom will be
limited in application & accuracy. By climbing a little
higher up the hill, a wider perspective will be achieved,
and hence a more valuable understanding reached.

Position 1 leads to the insane 'exclusive right' of Bush,
Blair, Bin Laden, Zionism, Marxism and all other varieties
of Yahweyism. Position 2 leads to the morally bankrupt greed
& stupidity of Western liberal society. Perspectivism
attempts to find a way between these twin Yes/No evils.

I agree with your rating of Lewis, much as I enjoyed his
science fiction trilogy.

A bit much for Sunday morning. I'm going back to bed.
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:13:22 +0000, david hill
<[email hidden]> wrote:

I said:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were no
reliable way of determining the world's

Quoted message said:

roundness.

You replied:

Quoted message said:

Oh but there is a scientific mechanism to test the earths
roundness.

Which I believe is known technically as 'completely missing
the point'.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Michael Farthing said:

Goodness me! Someone else has been reading all this. I
agree with you absolutely Bernie! (Well, relatively
absolutely).

Of course you do - it's your position dressed up in
other clothes!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

"Nick Hopton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a recent message <[email hidden]>,
Andrew Kay <[email hidden]> wrote.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually it was none of these. It was the Open Spaces
Society. See:
oss.org.uk2004%20mar.htmOpen ↗

Interesting site, thanks for the link. In general I agree
with what they say, with the exception of what they say
about you-know-what.

Look what I found noots.co.ukmembersOpen ↗

Enjoy!! <vbg>

Cheers Andrew Kay

In a recent message <[email hidden]>,
Andrew Kay <[email hidden]> wrote.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting site, thanks for the link. In general I agree
with what they say, with the exception of what they say
about you-know-what.

Look what I found noots.co.ukmembersOpen ↗

Enjoy!! <vbg>

[...]

Very good! I shall wear my bobble-hat with pride. The only
reason I don't wear red socks is because the Thousand Mile
Sock Company doesn't appear to make them. This is a
disgrace, they'll be hearing from me in the near future.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Oh but there is a scientific mechanism to test the earths roundness.
But as you may already know it ain't round but more of a quashed tomato.
Fatter at the equator and leaner at the pole.
thats why gravity at the pole is more than at the equator- well by a
small margin. :-))))))

The earth is roughly spherical - GPS works

Richard Webb