VinnieK

Would that every post on the forum were like it.

We must have gone to very different schools My recollection is that Johnny would have gladly seized the opportunity to bunk off games and have a fag with his mates.

I don't think the intention is to pursue it through the courts. The story and the clip both state that it would be dealt with by disciplinary measures in the schools. The tone is a bit high-handed, but all that's really being said is that the DESC will support schools when they have to punish students for what presumably includes coughing in some other kid's face and scampering off giggling.

I'd agree with that, but something probably did need to be said about 'malicious coughing', if only to pre-empt any complaints if it does start up. Not sure that he's ensured that it's going to be the ongoing joke though, unless those students who would do that are surprisingly keen on following government statements.

Well, what's the alternative? Not make attendance mandatory just because some of the simpler kids will put on a cough to annoy people/because they think they'll get sent home? Not threaten punishment for taking the piss? Or both?

I'd still prefer that to the Prow down on the Quay.

That's not exactly how it is though, is it? The entire thread is full of people posting under pseudonyms because ever since the Internet became even slightly popular it's been the common practice to adopt usernames instead of your own name. That's simply Internet culture and it's been that way for an awful long time before cancel culture and whatnot became hot topics---unsurprisingly, most people are generally, and understandably, a bit leery about discussing things openly with a large, potentially massive, number of strangers watching.

I could be completely wrong, but the impression I had was that reassignment is used more commonly than realignment, probably (partially) because "gender assignment" is such a common phrase.

I'm not sure that we do. Isn't that the survey people from Quing wrote?

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't understand how the charge of what happened being an "ambush" really changes anything, even if we accept that is what happened. Suppose it was an "ambush" by people who don't usually listen to the show. Does that really matter? If a presenter of a phone-in show comments publicly on a prominent issue during a time when the debate surrounding that issue is at its most heated, it's not exactly surprising when people phone in to challenge him. Nor would it be especially unusual or sinister if those people happen to know each other and had arranged to listen or phone in to the show beforehand—people group together around common experiences, viewpoints, and interests. In other words, being "ambushed" (if that is what happened) doesn't absolve him of his failure to anticipate what might happen as a result of his comment here (either before or after he made it) or the lack of preparation for that eventuality. After all, it's hard to not be aware of the level of scrutiny that comments made by public figures can receive these days, and it's not as if the controversy surrounding some kind of comments (e.g. "all lives matter") or the thinking behind phrases and ideas like "white privilege" are big secrets he couldn't have brushed up on before or immediately after he waded into the debate and made himself a potential target for opprobrium. Moreover, surely such preparation and awareness is all the more important if a presenter is going to go along the kind of "Snowflakes beware!" image actively cultivated by his promo material. In my view Stu didn't handle the show well and did leave himself open to charges of insensitivity. As John points out, there's a fair bit MR could have done to prevent something like this happening, but a fair bit of responsibility also rests on Stu's shoulders for failing to appreciate that his comment might have provoked an on-air response. And lets not forget, the comment Stu made that sparked all this off wasn't just some innocuous little observation. He starts off by strongly implying that the IOM Black Lives Matter protest is nothing but "a virtue signalling snowstorm", then bungs in some statistics about white-on-black vs. black-on-black and black-on-white crimes (ignoring the fact that a core theme of the protests are opposition to institutional/structural racism), and then ends with "all lives matter" (which has been a source of controversy since Black Lives Matter started). Stu is of course as free to make those comments as anyone, but in doing so, and in such a confrontational tone, he may as well have openly invited people to phone in and give him grief.

Are you talking about Jamys Jeheiney? That was an hour, not half an hour, though I don't think it's running anymore. Claare ny Gael (one hour, FM) is quite good though. . .

Ah! So that's why the police were milling about St Johns for ages today. Apparently, the effigy is of Manannan, though from what I've seen it looks like someone gave the dummy from the Saw films a lick of paint, threw a bit of greenery about it, and stuck weird antler-like eyebrows on its face. I suppose a deity can look however he wants though, and he was something akin to a trickster god⁠—perhaps his latest appearance is some kind of celestial practical joke.

You could say exactly the same thing about every single country outside the point of origin, but that wouldn't be a particularly useful observation. It's better to try and get a handle on how many cases of infection for which travel is directly responsible.

I'd not be surprised if those both apply as much (or more) to some of the callers who came to Stu's defence (which is where the delay would come in handy) as it does to Stu himself. But the report is clear that the CC is concerned only with the question of whether it's codes have been broken, and that this doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the broadcaster's internal standards or disciplinary actions. It's possible that MR might still decide the show fell short of their standards, either because of how it was presented or because of something more intrinsic to the nature of the show itself, and act on that decision in some way. Again, I'm not saying they should, just that it's not unthinkable.

Just to play devil's advocate, would it really be contradictory or even hypocritical if, in light of all this, they decided that they didn't want to run that kind of program in the future? I'm not suggesting that this is or should be their position, but I wouldn't see it as particularly surprising or against the grain if, although glad no rule was broken this time, MR decided that they didn't want to carry on with the whole "look out snowflakes!" style phone-in show for much longer.

Don't forget slightly embarrassing as well.

Perhaps squatting down and performing some manic crab-like dancing from side to side is involved? That or just shoot the kids and the dogs, then the kneeling is both to open fire and 'for the fallen', which is an admirable display of efficiency.

It's not really like that though. It's only natural to exercise caution and suspicion regarding the opinion of someone who has a record of making false allegations, drawing dodgy conclusions, and engaging in fraud. A better analogy would be throwing away a box of oranges because you've had three or four from it already and found they all tasted like rotting feet.

What if it was some kind of demented, 24-hour long Musique concrète or Skinny Puppy-like industrial affair? Hell, I'd take even just a theatrical recitation of the more mental posts on here over a loop of Deep Down Trauma Hounds as a regular addition to Manx Radio Breakfast, especially if one of them was that one where we all got called a "bunch of muggy cunts".

I'm not sure, but I think you might be legally obliged to start liking them now, at least until one of us dies or starts liking Queen. I think it works a bit like Highlander, only with the freedom to think Brian May's a bit boring, or that Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't go anywhere as the big prize, instead of the ability to enslave humanity.

So now I know something about everyone in the world: that we don't like queen, and everyone else does. In some small way, this must be what being God* feels like. *God isn't fond of Queen either. Hates everything but Bicycle Race.

And I'm the third. Can we have our own subforum in the music and club scene section if the fourth is also a member here?

To be fair, a lot of physicists, etc. don't need to really understand maths - in most instances being proficient in just using the mathematics that's already been developed for them and knowing what they can apply and when will do just fine. When problems do crop up, it's usually more because someone either: doesn't know when applying this or that bit of mathematics is valid; and/or they confuse proficiency and procedural knowledge with understanding, and start making wacky claims because their overconfidence is blinding them to the dodginess of their reasoning.

That the physicists in the video are touting it as 'amazing' is an example of some pretty faulty reasoning at best, or publicity seeking at worst. If you watch the video, the key element of their 'proof' is that they assign the value 1/2 to the series 1+0+1+0+1+0+... Now, this involves two things: assuming that the sum actually exists assigning an arbitrary, if useful, value to that sum. The heart of the mistake is that once you add an arbitrary value to a sum, you're no longer adding things together in the conventional sense- you're performing a different operation so while the 'sum' of natural numbers may be 1/12 under this operation, that is in no way saying the same thing as adding all the natural numbers together gives you that answer. Such techniques will be useful in some areas of mathematics and physics, less so in others, but what has to be remembered is that what they're describing is one way of approaching divergent infinite series, and not a universal truth about addition. Edited to delete unnecessary harshness and add: The worst thing about it is that it depends on people not having a full knowledge of what's being discussed in order for them to get their 'wow factor', whilst at the same time pretending to be informing people about something.

Unless, of course, he was dealing with an integration problem that demanded any level of understanding more sophisticated than knowing how to bash numbers into a formula and hope for the best...