Modern Life Is Rubbish

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge of millions of people around world.

I'd say with the state of the world today, being dismissive the "work" of its icons of leadership is a virtue!   

 

[Chekhov]

17 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

   When someone says "...I admit and have long admitted I am biased, very biased, though that does not mean much of what I say or report is not true", I take it to mean that they are biased and selective. Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge of millions of people around world. Choosing to ignore the science, the data and not working out the range of outcomes is a sure sign that you are using the Pandemic to promote a political view.

    Does admitting that you are "...very biased..." make you somehow extreme?

    Does admitting that not all not all of what you say is true make you somehow extreme?

    No- just biased error strewn irrelevance powered by personal moans.

>>using the Pandemic to promote a political view.<<

 

Pretty much everyone is doing that, do you not realise that ?

YOU do it. You think we should have suppressed everyone's freedoms to try and save lives. You are every bit as biased as I am, but in the opposite direction. The fact you cannot even see it is concerning, but it's also a bit arrogant. People like you think your attitude to the suppression of society was/is virtuous, but the opposite attitude is "political" = ARROGANCE.

 

>>When someone says "...I admit and have long admitted I am biased, very biased, though that does not mean much of what I say or report is not true", I take it to mean that they are biased and selective. Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge of millions of people around world. Choosing to ignore the science<<

 

I am obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support my position and disparage stuff which does not (not that there is much of that). But almost everyone on here does the same thing, nor does it mean that the facts and figures I quote are incorrect, they are not. Very few people are unbiased about the pandemic, even the supposedly unbiased scientists were biased : biased in favour of what they saw as attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy.

 

>>personal moans.<<

 

The whole of society was suppressed in an unprecedented and draconian manner, and you think people disliking that are "moaning".

You are possibly even more biased than me.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Chekhov

[Annie Bynnol]

14 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>using the Pandemic to promote a political view.<<

Pretty much everyone is doing that, do you not realise that ?

YOU do it. You think we should have suppressed everyone's freedoms to try and save lives. You are every bit as biased as I am, but in the opposite direction. The fact you cannot even see it is concerning, but it's also a bit arrogant. People like you think your attitude to the suppression of society was/is virtuous, but the opposite attitude is "political" = ARROGANCE.

>>When someone says "...I admit and have long admitted I am biased, very biased, though that does not mean much of what I say or report is not true", I take it to mean that they are biased and selective. Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge of millions of people around world. Choosing to ignore the science<<

I am obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support my position and disparage stuff which does not (not that there is much of that). But almost everyone on here does the same thing, nor does it mean that the facts and figures I quote are incorrect, they are not. Very few people are unbiased about the pandemic, even the supposedly unbiased scientists were biased : biased in favour of what they saw as attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy.

>>personal moans.<<

The whole of society was suppressed in an unprecedented and draconian manner, and you think people disliking that are "moaning".

You are possibly even more biased than me.

 

    Interesting that you consider the work of hundreds of millions of carers, workers, medical professionals, volunteers, scientists, etc "...is "political" = ARROGANCE...". 

    Interesting that you are admitting that millions of people were wrong  in their "... attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy."

    Interesting  that you make the assumption that globally tens of thousands "... supposedly unbiased scientists were biased."

 

   You seem to have created a very sad world to inhabit, where 'freedom fighters' like you are engaged in some kind of conflict with hundreds of millions of opponents trying to keep people alive.

     

Edited November 23, 2023 by Annie Bynnol

[Chekhov]

10 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Interesting that you consider the work of hundreds of millions of carers, workers, medical professionals, volunteers, scientists, etc "...is "political" = ARROGANCE...". 

    Interesting that you are admitting that millions of people were wrong  in their "... attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy."

    Interesting  that you make the assumption that globally tens of thousands "... supposedly unbiased scientists were biased."

   You seem to have created a very sad world to inhabit, where 'freedom fighters' like you are engaged in some kind of conflict with hundreds of millions of opponents trying to keep people alive.

Stop misquoting me, I never said that "the work of hundreds of millions of carers, workers, medical professionals, volunteers, scientists, etc "...is "political". 

I said that people wanting to suppress others personal freedoms, for whatever reason, is political, which it quite obviously is.

 

It is quite simple, what separates me from you is that you think people's rights and freedoms of of little consequence, certainly in comparison to saving life (or, more accurately, in the case of Covid, delaying death by about 5 to 10 years). 

I am quite certain you would agree with Mike Buckley that forcing all 3 million secondary school pupils to wear masks would be worth it to save one life (or, more accurately, delay death for one person by between 5 and 10 years).

Similarly, in fact it's EXACTLY the same attitude, you have also stated you agree that all train windows should be non opening to save the odd person (with no brains) every few years that might get it knocked off.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Chekhov

[Annie Bynnol]

23 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Stop misquoting me, I never said that "the work of hundreds of millions of carers, workers, medical professionals, volunteers, scientists, etc "...is "political". 

I said that people wanting to suppress others personal freedoms, for whatever reason, is political, which it quite obviously is.

It is quite simple, what separates me from you is that you think people's rights and freedoms of of little consequence, certainly in comparison to saving life (or, more accurately, in the case of Covid, delaying death by about 5 to 10 years). 

I am quite certain you would agree with Mike Buckley that forcing all 3 million secondary school pupils to wear masks would be worth it to save one life (or, more accurately, delay death for one person by between 5 and 10 years).

Similarly, in fact it's EXACTLY the same attitude, you have also stated you agree that all train windows should be non opening to save the odd person (with no brains) every few years that might get it knocked off.

  You admit that your beliefs are "...very biased..." and that you admit that only select stuff "...which support (your) position and disparage stuff which does not".

  You make the assumption that those who question your bias and beliefs and point out your mistakes, collectively form a 'political' group you call the 'authoritarians' in a world where only you can see  what is good for us.

   Unlike HHR, very biased, disparaging and inaccurate views need to be challenged.

   

 

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  You admit that your beliefs are "...very biased..." and that you admit that only select stuff "...which support (your) position and disparage stuff which does not".

  You make the assumption that those who question your bias and beliefs and point out your mistakes, collectively form a 'political' group you call the 'authoritarians' in a world where only you can see  what is good for us.

   Unlike HHR, very biased, disparaging and inaccurate views need to be challenged.

My original full post, as opposed to your edited version, answers your questions :

 

 

>>using the Pandemic to promote a political view.<<

 

Pretty much everyone is doing that, do you not realise that ?

YOU do it. You think we should have suppressed everyone's freedoms to try and save lives. You are every bit as biased as I am, but in the opposite direction. The fact you cannot even see it is concerning, but it's also a bit arrogant. People like you think your attitude to the suppression of society was/is virtuous, but the opposite attitude is "political" = ARROGANCE.

 

>>When someone says "...I admit and have long admitted I am biased, very biased, though that does not mean much of what I say or report is not true", I take it to mean that they are biased and selective. Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge of millions of people around world. Choosing to ignore the science<<

 

I am obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support my position and disparage stuff which does not (not that there is much of that). But almost everyone on here does the same thing, nor does it mean that the facts and figures I quote are incorrect, they are not. Very few people are unbiased about the pandemic, even the supposedly unbiased scientists were biased : biased in favour of what they saw as attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy.

 

>>personal moans.<<

 

The whole of society was suppressed in an unprecedented and draconian manner, and you think people disliking that are "moaning".

You are possibly even more biased than me.

[Annie Bynnol]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

My original full post, as opposed to your edited version, answers your questions :

>>using the Pandemic to promote a political view.<<

Pretty much everyone is doing that, do you not realise that ?

YOU do it. You think we should have suppressed everyone's freedoms to try and save lives. You are every bit as biased as I am, but in the opposite direction. The fact you cannot even see it is concerning, but it's also a bit arrogant. People like you think your attitude to the suppression of society was/is virtuous, but the opposite attitude is "political" = ARROGANCE.

>>When someone says "...I admit and have long admitted I am biased, very biased, though that does not mean much of what I say or report is not true", I take it to mean that they are biased and selective. Being dismissive of the work, experience and knowledge

of millions of people around world. Choosing to ignore the science<<

I am obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support my position and disparage stuff which does not (not that there is much of that). But almost everyone on here does the same thing, nor does it mean that the facts and figures I quote are incorrect, they are not. Very few people are unbiased about the pandemic, even the supposedly unbiased scientists were biased : biased in favour of what they saw as attempts to save life over the draconian restrictions on society and the economy.

>>personal moans.<<

The whole of society was suppressed in an unprecedented and draconian manner, and you think people disliking that are "moaning".

You are possibly even more biased than me.

    I have no questions that you could possibly answer without they being, in your words, "...very biased..." ...  and "...obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support (your) position and disparage stuff which does not." 

[Chekhov]

On 02/08/2023 at 17:56, Chekhov said:

Killjoys enforce dumbed down cotton wool cobblers of the first order.

You are cordially invited to the funeral of personal responsibility :

"Jacobite steam service [tourist train from Fort William to Mallaig in Scotland] suspended after concerns over door locking safety"

 

The ORR (Office of Rail Regulation] indicated carriage vestibules were not being managed properly and the inspector said someone could fall out from the doors of a train or that  a person leaning out of an open droplight of a moving train may be struck as the train passed infrastructure, including vegetation, rock cuttings and earthworks.

Stewards are not preventing passengers from operating the secondary door locks, or preventing passengers from leaning out of the train doors or out of the opening droplight windows.

(Railway Magazine Aug 2023 p6)

 

Plus https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66271357

 

Timeline 

1830 - First inter city rail service [without central locking of doors and with opening windows] 

1951 - Mk1 coaches (as used on the Jacobite service) introduced [without central locking of doors and with opening windows]

2005 - Central door locking mandated [175 years since the 1st inter city service, 54 years since the introduction of the  Mk1 coach]

2019 - Opening windows banned on mainline trains [189 years since the 1st inter city service]

 

Some people would say that if anyone is stupid enough to open a door whilst the train is moving (when it is out of a station and/or travelling at more than walking pace), or lean out of a train window without first checking it's safe, that's Darwin's theory working right there.

Don't dumb us all down just because a tiny number of people haven't got the sense they were born with.....

 

BTW, that bloke leaning out of the train widow below is not doing anything dangerous at the location he is doing it, not if you are using any reasonable definition of the word "safe".

I'd be doing the same thing given half a chance.

@Annie Bynnol (and the other over cautious authoritarians) will be delighted, people with a brain will now be about 0.001% safer than they were before. They will now probably be 100,000X more likely to get killed in a car accident instead of the previous 10,000X more likely. How wonderful. :

 

Railway Magazine Jan 2024 (p12) :

[future of the] "Jacobite" hangs in the balance

The company [WCR who run the Jacobite steam trains and almost half mainline train excursions] has been using a manual door bolt system [though no supplementary carriage door bolts were required at all for the first 175 years of the railways] rather than a centrally controlled power operated system. WCR says a trained steward is positioned [at great expense, thus putting up the price of the tickets]  in each vestibule who will only unlock the doors when the train is in a station platform. The stewards also ensure that no one leans out of the window, which is another safety concern of the ORR [because one brain dead got killed back in 2013, when a lineside signal was too close to the train than it should have been anyway].

In June 2023 the ORR said the use of manual door bolts "put passengers at risk of serious injury" [if they didn't have a brain and their carer wasn't about].

WCR argue that installing power operated door locking in its fleet of carriage would coats around £7m which would effectively make rail tour operations unviable [and/or significantly more expensive]

 

 

Edited January 3 by Chekhov

[Palomar]

On 24/11/2023 at 20:27, Annie Bynnol said:

    I have no questions that you could possibly answer without they being, in your words, "...very biased..." ...  and "...obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support (your) position and disparage stuff which does not." 

Chekhov has nil value as a debater or source of information as he's unable to modify his views in the face of overwhelming counter arguments and happily accepts his own conformation biases. His petulant character completely undermines him, rendering his posts a mere word soup. What a waste.

[hackey lad]

7 minutes ago, Palomar said:

Chekhov has nil value as a debater or source of information as he's unable to modify his views in the face of overwhelming counter arguments and happily accepts his own conformation biases. His petulant character completely undermines him, rendering his posts a mere word soup. What a waste.

You sound like Hannibal Lector 😀