BoxRec

RE: The "anti-competitiveness in schools" thing, the "Make the kids feel special" thing.

Fecking stupid result of applying po-mo navel-gazing to real-world, humancentric events. The moment the post-modernists step outside the arts, I think someone should drop something heavy on their heads, meself. Especially when one relates it to social theorising (and even worse) politics. Sorry to wax lyrical, but what's that Samuel Johnson response to Bishop Berkely's "we are all but a dream and you can't prove otherwise" proto-po-mo drivel? I think he said "I refute you thus" and kicked him in the leg. Top chap.

Back in my day, curmudge curmudge curmudge, grumble grumble grumble et cetera....

Oh, by the way, on-topic-ish: I'm all for boxing in schools. Make it an option in games, even if it's only boxercise. School I went to phased it out a couple of years before I went there, and I was gutted.

Of course, perception is everything, and we cannot entirely prove that once we no longer see something that it still exists, but it's a bloody good guess, which is all that science is anyway. Theories are only current until they are disproved and are never really considered fact.

One of the more interesting things I ever heard a scientist say was by a cosmologist, who said something along the lines of

"Despite all of the scientific investigations into the nature of the cosmos, there isn't a cosmological scientist living, who could say with any authority whatsoever, that the laws of physics which apply in our region of the universe, also hold true throughout the rest of the known universe."

Thus, ultimately, you cannot prove anything totally unequivocally, and have to have some faith in things which you assume to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by others before you.

Andy Mac wrote:

livingstone cole wrote:In such high profile of crimes the charged party deserve the highest of representation, a good lawyer on their side can only defend them to the letter of the law. Inconsistencies or discrepencies within the law are to blame for many instances of 'scum' living free. Besides which the new law enabling persons to be tried twice for the same crime ought to straighten out some cases whereby the defence got someone off an a technicality.

Oh and by the way, my girlfriend, sorry, as of last weekend fiance, is considering a law conversion. So don't you knock the wages OK? They'll be keeping me in Armani suits. Although she wants to get into the whole human rights side of things I'll be doing my best to persuade her that getting rich celebrities off with driving bans is far more ethical.

And the publicity will get you even more Armani suits Livingstone. My advice would be to try and talk her into financial law, representing venture capitalists and such. Maybe not ideallistically rewarding, but serious serious money to be made.

I act for private equity funds and venture capitalists, it certainly pays the bills. It may not be helping the African starving, but neither is it idealistically negative. Over 20% of the UK workforce are now employed by corporate entities ultimately owned by private equity money. These companies have higher rates of growth and higher rates of employment growth than the rest of the economy.

Andy (I think it was Andy) - I said the post was ridiculous, not the person who made it. Confusing politicians and lawyers is understable but a bit of a generalisation: Blair may have read law at unversity and done the first part of his pupilage but he never actually practised law in his life. If you look at the current Cabinet, some 25 members (technically 22 plus 3 co-opted members), only 3 ever worked as lawyers before entering politics. What is of more concern is that most of them are effectively career politicians.

Yo Terence, ever read a book called "Mediated" by... Feck, can't remember the name? Thomas de Z-something. Be right up your street, mate. I think you'd enjoy it loads.

Arf! Top bloke.

Sorry to butt in again, but that book "Mediated" was by Thomas De Zengotita.

Name like an Argentinian flyweight, but very clever argument, nicely written.

I'll get me anorak...

Loynesy wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

livingstone cole wrote:In such high profile of crimes the charged party deserve the highest of representation, a good lawyer on their side can only defend them to the letter of the law. Inconsistencies or discrepencies within the law are to blame for many instances of 'scum' living free. Besides which the new law enabling persons to be tried twice for the same crime ought to straighten out some cases whereby the defence got someone off an a technicality.

Oh and by the way, my girlfriend, sorry, as of last weekend fiance, is considering a law conversion. So don't you knock the wages OK? They'll be keeping me in Armani suits. Although she wants to get into the whole human rights side of things I'll be doing my best to persuade her that getting rich celebrities off with driving bans is far more ethical.

And the publicity will get you even more Armani suits Livingstone. My advice would be to try and talk her into financial law, representing venture capitalists and such. Maybe not ideallistically rewarding, but serious serious money to be made.

I act for private equity funds and venture capitalists, it certainly pays the bills. It may not be helping the African starving, but neither is it idealistically negative. Over 20% of the UK workforce are now employed by corporate entities ultimately owned by private equity money. These companies have higher rates of growth and higher rates of employment growth than the rest of the economy.

Andy (I think it was Andy) - I said the post was ridiculous, not the person who made it. Confusing politicians and lawyers is understable but a bit of a generalisation: Blair may have read law at unversity and done the first part of his pupilage but he never actually practised law in his life. If you look at the current Cabinet, some 25 members (technically 22 plus 3 co-opted members), only 3 ever worked as lawyers before entering politics. What is of more concern is that most of them are effectively career politicians.

I would venture that what is of real concern is the fact that a Law degree seems to be almost a prerequisite of being a career politician.

first of all i would not advise watching that model prog in your underpants with only a bag of cheesy whatsits for company. i can see one cheesy whatsit getting confused with another cheesy whatsit very easily indeed and a mess being made.

james is disappearing into fantasy land with his informed "critique" of the
scientific world which apparantly cannot prove anything to 100% certainty!!!
james you'll be telling me you believe in the man upstairs next.

harrygreb wrote:first of all i would not advise watching that model prog in your underpants with only a bag of cheesy whatsits for company. i can see one cheesy whatsit getting confused with another cheesy whatsit very easily indeed and a mess being made.

james is disappearing into fantasy land with his informed "critique" of the
scientific world which apparantly cannot prove anything to 100% certainty!!!
james you'll be telling me you believe in the man upstairs next.

I think the difference is H that no mathmetician would say that 2 and 2 is definitely 4, in case someone creates a better numerical system, whereas some religious nutter will tell you that there is DEFINITELY a God.