Top Gear

Steven said:

Jeez, no wonder our universities and the NHS are always after more and more
money.

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only enough work
for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for personal pursuits all
day long.

Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior doctors
even sleep on the job.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3939033.stm

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Steven said:

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only enough work
for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for personal pursuits all
day long.

Say something as if it's true and then it'll be true. You do like that
gambit, don't you!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Tony Raven said:

"Within the University there exist both staff who work a specified
number of hours per week and those who work the time that is
reasonably required to fulfil the duties of the post."

I suspect that Pete falls in the latter category in which case as
long as he fulfils his duties there is no issue with his employers.

Well spotted!
Technically my post with UoD is honorary, I'm actually employed by the
NHS, but same goes.

But think of all the bandwidth you use up.

(Actually, last time I worked at a university, the bottleneck to large
downloads was the LAN)
--
Ambrose

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Steven said:

If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
part time nature of your work for them.

I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
I've
done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
like that.

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

(Steven) said:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:16 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?

Quoted message said:

An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who was refused
permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down to B&Q
and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then somehow got
this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the tandem.

Quoted message said:

It just *screams* urban legend because although at first sight you might think,
ha ha, yes, very funny, when you think of the amount of cardboard required, how
it was man handled back to the station, how an awkward object such as a tandem
could be securely packaged, it all starts to sound just a *little* far fetched.

Perhaps because your problem solving skills don't stretch that far?

I've twice watched cyclists doing just that kind of thing in airports
when faced with unexpected rules about bicycle packaging. Not with
tandems, and not for a railway train, but I don't see that that makes
it much harder. It helps if you're in the habit of carrying a useful
pocket knife, and have often used it before to craft ad hoc packaging
from random boxes.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:49:36 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal activities, the
datum that your employers use actually account for the part time nature of your
work for them.

I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that I've
done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
like that.

Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of yor day
posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the case with a lot of
taxpayer financed operations), you are not being given a full days work to do.

I've always been against a lot of the privatisations, but if you are an example
of the value the taxpayer gets from their expenditure, I think a few more are
needed pretty damn quickly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But quite harmless as it was posted to a group where there are plenty of experts
who will rapidly point out any errors.

So why did you respond so crossly when that was done?

I didn't get angry when that was done.

I simply explained that I assumed a 6v dynamo meant 6v not 0.5 amps (an
incredibly stupid assumption, obviously), and mentioned why I'd never considered
a dynamo system.

It was further down the line that I started getting the smart-arsed responses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I made a similarly stupid and unhelpful reply in response. Deal with it.

It was actually stupid in an entirely different way, because rather than
respond with a flippant question you assumed a true answer and posted that.

It was just like for like.

Guy knew exactly the error in my wording, but he wanted to be clever, so instead
of hust pointing it out he asked a stupid question.

Stupid gets as stupid gives.

Quoted message said:

I deal with it quite easily by realising from examples that you don't
qualify your experience and knowledge as well as you usefully might and
thus I can't really rely on what you have to say.

Quoted message said:

It's actually quite rare.

Your posting record very clearly paints a different picture.

Maybe to you.

A lot of people are very slimey in that they are extremely rude to people, but
are never honest enough to actually come right out and say it in simple terms.

Instead they say it in a more or less roundabout manner, and then get all holier
than thou when anyone responds directly.

It's a ploy that works on stupid people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I learned from the errors and carried on.

Carried on making the errors, that is. Again, according to your posting
record.

This is probably your impression because you *think* you've argued a point
satisfactorily but in fact you haven't (in that it's not clear to the audience),
and so you assume that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I've said, you are the sort of person who relys on sheer quantity of posting
to beat your opponents into submission. I've seen you do it to quite a few
people on quite a few topics.

Not for the first time, pot, meet kettle, talk about dark colouring.

That is true.

You're just so much better at it than I am ;-)

Quoted message said:

I
can also interact quite constructively with people, as my posting record
shows. And I do so rather more often than you, in fact.

Strangely, so can I.

I suppose urc is not a very typical place. Even though I'm not what you'd call a
cycling enthusiast (although I am quite enthusiastic about cycling if you see
what I mean), a lot of people consider the mere fact that I ride a bike at 50 to
be a bit odd. Their opinion of the lycra clad, helmeted, traffic light jumping,
pavement riding (yes, I know,I know), 'real' cyclist doesn't bear thinking
about.

I do know that I can rub along quite happily and cooperatively with people in
several of the (non-cycling) forums I habitualy post to.

It's just that here, there seem to be quite a few very prolific posters who are
so dogmatic and opinionated that sensible discussion is impossible - at least
if, like you and me, you won't let anything go.

Tony Raven said:

Steven said:

Jeez, no wonder our universities and the NHS are always after more and more
money.

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only enough work
for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for personal pursuits all
day long.

Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior doctors
even sleep on the job.

No.

Clue: some != all

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:00:00 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only enough work
for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for personal pursuits all
day long.

Say something as if it's true and then it'll be true. You do like that
gambit, don't you!

Well, it's clear that you can spend a great deal of time posting here every day.

Thus it's clear that you have nowhere *near* a full days work to do every day
unless, of course, you habitually spend well over 8 hours a day 'at work'.

Sometimes things are clear, and sometimes things follow from other things.

Sometimes, of course, things aren't as clear as they seem, and you may well do a
reasonable number of hours work per week.

Don't forget, this came up in the context of my trying to decide how much trust
I could place in what (before I discovered further information) seemed to be a
very tall story from an unknown poster.

I've actually seen people spend as long as you on playing on the net during
working hours, and I've seen them sacked for it. And I wouldn't trust a word
they told me. But those people were clock watcheing long luch breakers as well,
whereas you tell me you work late.

Who knows?

Steven said:

Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of yor day
posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the case with a lot of
taxpayer financed operations), you are not being given a full days work to do.

Only if I don't do other work outside normal hours. So though *you* can
"only assume" the worse, there is another perfectly reasonable
explanation, though you won't accept it because you've already decided
otherwise, on insufficient evidence. You've jumped to another
conclusion without enough evidence, not for the first time.

Quoted message said:

Guy knew exactly the error in my wording, but he wanted to be clever, so instead
of hust pointing it out he asked a stupid question.

Stupid gets as stupid gives.

You continue to be act like a spoiled child, so you get stupid things
pointed at you. It's simple cause and effect. But you persist in an
inability to see it works both ways. People treat you like [censored] because
you treat them like [censored]. The same people don't have trouble getting
along with other regulars here, *you* are the common factor in the
flying excrement.

Quoted message said:

Strangely, so can I.

Yet you don't on u.r.c.

Quoted message said:

It's just that here, there seem to be quite a few very prolific posters who are
so dogmatic and opinionated that sensible discussion is impossible - at least
if, like you and me, you won't let anything go.

So how do those prolific and dogmatic posters spend so much time /not/
arguing the toss with one another? Sensible discussion is quite
possible, and is often in abundant evidence here, if you are willing to
discuss sensibly. You are clearly not, or you wouldn't resort to temper
tantrums and name calling when anyone points out you're using the unsafe
assumptions you have a repeated habit of using.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven said:

Who knows?

You don't, yet you keep on going on as if you do. Doesn't take long to
rattle off one of these while tuning a GUI setup.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven said:

Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of
yor day posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the
case with a lot of taxpayer financed operations), you are not being
given a full days work to do.

And your reason for you being able to spend an equally large proportion
of your day is:

a) You are posting from work like Pete
b) You don't have employment to get in the way
c) Its your job to post to Usenet?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

Steven said:

Jeez, no wonder our universities and the NHS are always after more
and more money.

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only
enough work for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for
personal pursuits all day long.

Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior
doctors even sleep on the job.

IME some of them can *almost* cannulate someone in their sleep. Almost.

--
Ambrose

Simon Brooke said:

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

Well, he has proven himself to be categorically not worth the time of
day as well as being a remarkably unpleasant individual, so it's time to
apply the "don't argue with an idiot in case other people cease to see
the difference" adage. Actually, probably well past time :-(

It's not as if people need me to point out anything unpleasant about
him, after all, what with all the evidence he keeps posting himself.

My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
Illustrious company indeed!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ambrose Nankivell said:

IME some of them can *almost* cannulate someone in their sleep. Almost.

To be fair its not that difficult to cannulate someone in their sleep ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Peter Clinch said:

My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
Illustrious company indeed!

How did you get away without John Doh and Toad Fish and his multiple
personalities being in there too?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable
behaviour now.

My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
Illustrious company indeed!

He doesn't yet have /any/ company in mine. Quite an achievement!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Steven said:

If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
part time nature of your work for them.

I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
I've
done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
like that.

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

Follow his advice, Pete.

*Please*, follow his advice.

Steven said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Steven wrote:

>If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>part time nature of your work for them.

I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
I've
done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
like that.

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

Follow his advice, Pete.

*Please*, follow his advice.

Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

Steven said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>
>>If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>>activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>>part time nature of your work for them.
>
>I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
>I've
>done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>like that.

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

Follow his advice, Pete.

*Please*, follow his advice.

Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?

Wouldn't you like to know.

I'd rather *you* didn't kill file me, though, Joe.

I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful interpretations
of simple English.

You wouldn't want to deny me my fun, now, would you?

Quoted message said:

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

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

Quoted message said:

I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful
interpretations
of simple English.

I note you haven't come back to discuss the various interpretations of what
a 'fatal flaw' was which I mentioned.

clive