Mr Shoe

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Looks like I'd have plenty of company.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48473-more-than-a-third-of-under-40s-would-refuse-conscription-in-the-event-of-a-world-war

 

I think that third would soon change their minds if Putin uses a wrong pronoun.

Of course, that assumes they can use their keyboards instead of an assault rifle.

2 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Sorry, I meant developer (head honcho) of the project, not the techies. 

bingo. glad you said it!

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

Didn't the developers do a runner with the money or something?

no. in fact, the developers/tech staff went unpaid for the last few months

as is always the case, you need to look further up the food chain

I worked closely with Bernie in the late 80s(?) Not in radio, in one of his other careers. Lovely, lovely, funny, warm guy. A delight to spend time with. RIP Bernie.

On 2/17/2021 at 1:55 AM, Gladys said:

Problem is, he is not going away. 

I know, he's a total liability. But maybe he'll get sick and Kamala can take over. 

Wait, what?

8 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The head count is being looked at, as per Derek F's post on the  Bus Heaven thread this morning.

They're revising it up. Continually.

And some senior employees are being bumped pay grades (upwards) while the crisis lasts. I'm sure there's justification, it just eludes me right now.

Bitterness aside, I agree that it's a sin how the self-employed are being treated. As ever with the IOM, total conflict of interest.

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I genuinely don't know what to make of your comment, because you don't seem to have read anything I have written but have decided to have a go at me anyway.  Statisticians can indeed make use of imperfect datasets with all sorts of clever techniques (though great care is needed because of hidden assumptions). 

But that's not what is being proposed with mass testing - it's the opposite, a 100% sample.  For the effort involved you don't get much more information and it's not much use - maybe even counterproductive - for the purpose of disease control.

 

This thread grows too fast to read every post! But your post that I responded to suggested that mass testing was pointless and only had value for show boating governments. 

Fair enough...I can now re-read your post as "100% mass testing is pointless/impossible, targeted testing is good, little testing is bad" Yes?

Personally (and I'm in a very different field) I would have ongoing randomised compulsory sampling of the populace. In addition to testing for those with symptoms or specific reasons.

Only testing those with symptoms and/or returnees is reactive. "Mass" randomised testing is proactive/predictive.

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

In this case Henrietta.  Mass testing in a pandemic is fairly useless.  Either you find hardly anyone and (depending on the test you use) false positives may outweigh the actual cases or you provide false reassurance.  Or  you find loads and all it does is confirm you're in the mess you knew you were in.

..... 

It's only used by governments wanting to do something dramatic and headline-grabbing (so suits the current UK government) but it's completely ineffective, especially with Covid.  of course when they did it in Liverpool the test they used was so inaccurate that they might as well have tossed a coin anyway.

....

True. If you're an armchair statistician or on a forum.

False. If you have a statistics (or similar) degree, masters or phd.

What do you think they study for all those years? They learn how to piece together a solid result from a crappy mishmash of seemingly conflicting datasets. 

Collect all the data you can. Because if you don't and something turns out to be crucial, we don't have a time machine to go back and re-gather the data.

35 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Don't be silly. Allinson has not complained because he will have 'read' it is as the sarcastic reply to your suggestion  his Dept of Education would be swayed by the first few thoughts of a small recently formed group of people who want to make a difference  to societal attitudes.

Gladys, you are constantly trying to deride anyone or organisation that does not follow your view of racism and I'm failing to understand your logic, your reasons.

You're an intelligent Woman, you say you have tried to '' Educate Yourself'', I know, it's a terrible phrase!... but Douglas Murray is not the person to help you with that. He's been around for many years, a couple of his blogs will not have given you an insight into his extremism anymore than putting on a Blackshirt and listening to Mosley would have told you were it was leading.

Perhaps you have a responsibility consider the effect on others of your posts, you have your Gang of Five, your happy clappers, high fivers who like your every post but what of those who are not as intelligent, nuanced as you, who do not have the words to temper what they say in response, who feel you give them credence to voice a more extreme racism?

State the extremism. Back your outrageous attacks with facts and quotes.

Other than your own awful "sarcasm", where have posters on here voiced extreme racism?

Are you suggesting your post was due to the "Gladys effect"? Er. OK.

And while you're at it, show me Murray's extremist views.

14 hours ago, Kopek said:

I wouldn't click on anything that would add to his income, give him credence for his extreme views. Maybe he is such a nice guy but knows which point of view will bring him the attention and income he seeks. He's a smart cookie, he wouldn't say anything illegal or that might bring wide opprobrium that might damage his ''career''.

I've heard enough of his view these last 15 years, I don't need to click on anything to know his worth.

Given that he spoke at some length a few days ago and has a current book out, can you give a specific example of his extremism?

Rather than just going by your gut feeling.

More than two-thirds of BLM donations ($millions) to the mother organisation go towards salaries and "consultant" fees.  Says it all (apologies if this has already been discussed).

Whatever the original intentions, the "BLM" brand is just being used as a political and money making vehicle by a vast number of opportunists.

But "the left" won't allow criticism of BLM: to criticise BLM = being a filthy racist. A person can be anti-racist AND anti-BLM at the same time. 

19 hours ago, gettafa said:

It's probably been discussed in this thread, but can anyone offer suggestions why the Black Lives Matter march was attended by very much mostly young women?

Peer pressure.

For example, it would be socially unacceptable if a girl DIDN'T post the black square on her Instagram a few weeks back. 

There are girls who see themselves as "social media influencers" which basically involves getting likes for revealing insta pix and shouting the loudest about the latest cultural issue. You get extra points if you are seen to pressure others to "get onboard". Bullying takes many forms. Ironic isn't it?

Boys tend to headbutt each other and play in the mud.

6 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

did he?

Pre covid (which has fucked up most places) the USA was doing relatively well under Trump.  Don't forget he got elected because of the shit deal so many Americans were getting under Obama.  The main beneficiaries under Obama were everyone outside of the States.

Nah. Just being sarcastic. Always bemused how people fawn over those politicians whose every word is focus group tested. But Trump baaaad! Obama would make a wonderful dinner guest, but he was a pretty ineffectual leader. 

Actually, I think  the momentum of a machine like the US is so immense that an individual (be it Trump, Obama, Ghandi or Father Dougal McGuire) has very little effect on the country.

8 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

With Obama as President the world seemed a much more positive place.

I agree, things seem so much better with an eloquent man in charge. I'd watch an Obama oration and couldn't help but nod. 

It seems like Trump inherited a practical utopia and turned it into hell on earth.

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

 

Contra is highly intelligent. I've watched most of her stuff. I don't always 100% agree but it always makes me think. 

Doesn't make BLM right though. 

Delighted for you Stu!

33 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The fact that he has chosen that publication to give his first and so far only public comments to says everything you need to know. In my view.

Maybe they were the first and only ones to contact him for his point of view?

Or you know for a fact that he chose them?

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

''  Not being Racist isn't enough ''.

Serious point or facetious?

There's "white privilege" as a concept. Just like [any other home team] privilege, it's just a small but helpful advantage in life.

Much like being a Liverpool FC supporter if you live beside Anfield. Life is just better compared to being an Everton supporter. 

But then there's accusing a white man (as a non-white person) of having "white privilege". That's guilt loading (it's also avoiding personal responsibility).

HOWEVER (to side with HeliX somewhat) I freely admit that due to their forefathers being taken against their will to the USA, etc, African Americans can never have the home team advantage. I have no solution for that.

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Yes

For the record, I think there is white privilege. But of all the privilege accorded to the various populations in the world, "white privilege" is one of the most slight and western society deserves some credit for that (although capitalism also helps).

But, I will defend anyone's right to state they don't believe there is privilege.

Western society also deserves credit for freedom of speech. Or used to.

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Here is the post I was responding to, asking me for evidence of racism on the Island.

Fair point. I've been dipping in and out of the thread. My mistake.

General question for people who believe in white privilege: do you believe in (for example) arab privilege or chinese privilege?

Assuming you're in Saudi or China respectively.

I've been in places where if there's no English menu outside the restaurant, I'm not welcome. And if I go in, I'll be asked to leave. Not legal in the UK (or the US AFAIK). 

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Well that's okay then, because people and organisations never do anything against the law.

Murder is against the law. There are still murders.  

Stop conflating racists with systemic/institutional racism.

We all agree with you that there are racists.

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I'm not sure you can dismiss three of them just because they happen to have been in the same year? The UK ones I copied from someone else's post, as I did the tribunal one.

The MLC - the Facebook threads got deleted. I know 'cause I was in them. No use to you obviously, but there's your explanation.

"Nobody wants you here" isn't something I've ever said to someone jumping a queue. You?

I did read the Tribunal by the way. Regardless of their overall finding, that document is full of casual and not so casual racism.

You're just repeating the fact that there are racists. But there is no systemic racism in the IOM.

I have compulsory equality training (as do 1,000s of others on the island) every year. Seriously, it is against the law to demonstrate racism (+8 other protected items) in an organisation. 

For the record, I just did a word count on the BBC transcript: (drum roll)

Jordan: 560

Stu: 290

I didn't include the words "Let's go to line one, I think we've got somebody else who wants to have a quick word. Hello, this is Manx Radio." or "we've got somebody else on line two. Hello, this is Late, Live and Unleashed, apparently."

Is anyone still saying that Stu just talked over Jordan? Refused to listen?