Stroll by name...

[~misfit~]

Yet again the best part of a second behind the old guy who came out of
retirement to help Williams fill the other seat.

I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet again
'stroll' back to the pits early?

[Philip]

In article <oe4j67$gps$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by ~misfit~
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet again
'stroll' back to the pits early?

Only one place outside the points today, so it looks as if your pessimism
was somewhat misplaced.

[Bigbird]

Post by Philip
says...

Post by ~misfit~
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet
again 'stroll' back to the pits early?

Only one place outside the points today, so it looks as if your
pessimism was somewhat misplaced.

You saw the spin? On such knife edges does luck balance.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Philip
Only one place outside the points today, so it looks as if your pessimism
was somewhat misplaced.

Misfart has his panties in a knot because Stroll has cash.

[~misfit~]

Post by Philip
says...

Post by ~misfit~
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet
again 'stroll' back to the pits early?

Only one place outside the points today, so it looks as if your
pessimism was somewhat misplaced.

Lapped and shown up by drivers in far slower cars - the only fair comparison
is with his team mate - who not only finished a long way up the order from
him but achieved that after taking an extra pit stop for a puncture.

Far more money than skill.

[~misfit~]

Post by Philip
says...

Post by ~misfit~
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet
again 'stroll' back to the pits early?

Only one place outside the points today, so it looks as if your
pessimism was somewhat misplaced.

And it only took him four race starts to get to a chequered flag.

Also that's a pretty rubbish result considering the other car would have
been easilly best of the rest (after the first three teams) if it weren't
for a puncture. ... And that Stoffel actually got points in his first ever
F1 race in a 2016 McLaren Honda!

Lance Stroll has been extremely underwhelming to say the least. I just hope
that his family money helps Williams get back up onto regular podiums in the
future.

[Naked Fame]

Post by ~misfit~
And that Stoffel actually got points in his first ever
F1 race in a 2016 McLaren Honda!

Slightly off-topic, but how about renaming the PU manufactor Hon-Nyet?

[b***@topmail.co.nz]

Post by ~misfit~
Lance Stroll has been extremely underwhelming to say the least. I just hope
that his family money helps Williams get back up onto regular podiums in the
future.

It's looks like Williams have the fourth-best car with Massa cruising around
in 7th place on his Sunday drives.

[Alan Baker]

Post by ~misfit~
Yet again the best part of a second behind the old guy who came out of
retirement to help Williams fill the other seat.
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet again
'stroll' back to the pits early?

You realize that he had a spin, right?

[geoff]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by ~misfit~
Yet again the best part of a second behind the old guy who came out of
retirement to help Williams fill the other seat.
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet again
'stroll' back to the pits early?

You realize that he had a spin, right?

Great driving. Should have paid a bigger contribution to the Anti-Spin-God.

geoff

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by Alan Baker

Post by ~misfit~
Yet again the best part of a second behind the old guy who came out
of retirement to help Williams fill the other seat.
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet
again 'stroll' back to the pits early?

You realize that he had a spin, right?

Great driving. Should have paid a bigger contribution to the
Anti-Spin-God.

I didn't see Baker's post until you quoted it. Yes of course I realise he
had a spin. Yet another rookie mistake, like not being aware another driver
might make a dive down his inside etc. etc. etc. It seems that he's a very
slow learner which rather reinforces my point that he shouldn't be in F1.

Carey, Brawn et al say that they're going to change F1 so that there are
less paid drivers and more emphasis on driver 'visibility' and skill (as
they believe that's a large part of what captures and holds punters
attention - not so much team politics). I can't help but think that a
billionaire being able to get his slow son a seat in a 'respected' team has
helped precipitate this attitude - so I guess I should be grateful to Stroll
for underlining a part of modern F1 which a lot of fans dislike.

Lets face it - the common man likes to think that talent (rather than cash)
can get you to the top of your field and anything that blatently disabuses
this belief will make them less likely to get involved. F1s audience is
largely made of of the common man (rather than the 1%) and it seems the new
management recognise what they like to see and intend to take steps to
ensure F1 pleases them.

Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the money is
distributed between the teams so that there is less pressure on the 'other
six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under Bernie most of the field in F1 was
in danger of becoming the ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and
well-managed whores).

[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are well-funded enough
to employ drivers solely for their driving skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red
Bull and McLaren. Williams used to be able to lay claim to membership of
that group and perhaps it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

And yes, I know there has historically been a bit of pay-driver in F1 (so no
need for a certain pedant to make a list). However I'm talking about what's
happening in the modern era and the realities and psychology of attracting
and keeping a following - which of course ultimately pays the bills rather
than half of the drivers families having to.

Ultimately that's a win-win for those of us who really do like to see the
worlds best drivers in the worlds most cutting-edge machinery.

[Bobster]

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the money is
distributed between the teams so that there is less pressure on the 'other
six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under Bernie most of the field in F1 was
in danger of becoming the ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and
well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are well-funded enough
to employ drivers solely for their driving skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red
Bull and McLaren. Williams used to be able to lay claim to membership of
that group and perhaps it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has to have 20 cars in the race. Which means that if Sauber had gone to the wall, F1 would have had to figure out where the two extra cars come from, maybe find extra power units, decide how the money gets distributed and etc.

Nothing else is a problem for them. Sure they own GP2, but there's only ever been a small number of drivers go from GP2 to F1 and that hasn't stopped people entering that formula.

Race teams are businesses, and that's the level at which problems have to be solved. The businesses have to be viable. Claire Williams was talking last season about how Williams wanted to retain all their employees for another year.

Where things need to change, IMO, is down the ladder a bit. F4 is a start, though still very expensive. I don't think it would fly financially in SA, unless there's a local chassis manufacturer, but it might mean that a young kid from SA might have a better chance at getting a foot on the bottom rung.

Did I read recently that they are trying to reduce costs in Karts and F3?

If costs go down in junior formulae, the playing field isn't levelled, but underfunded talent has a better chance of getting through to, say, GP3.

Which brings us back to F1. What Liberty and FIA should be working on is a cost cap. A limit on what can be spent on the car - with FIA able to audit, not some gentleman's agreement that carries no penalties.

That reduces the cost of putting a car on the track. Big teams will still have gazillions to spend on the top drivers and (gasp!) bank or pay out to investors. It seems to me that if you can say the cost of a car is X and the minimum we will get from F1 is Y and based on our position in the last 5 years, more likely Z, then you have a much better chance of attracting investors because they could do the sums and see that profit could be made. This makes teams more valuable.

Nothing will change in the short term. Contracts are in place until 2020. Coincidentally (or maybe not( they end when the current PU formula ends (a nice, tidy time for a manufacturer to walk away) and when Red Bull's obligations to F1 end.

[Bigbird]

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to be
able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps it's
their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has
to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I don't
recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up unitl fairly
recently.

[Mark Jackson]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1
has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up unitl
fairly recently.

It's not a regulation.* I do have a vague memory of reading that (most?
some?) race organizers are guaranteed 20 entrants by FOM, and get a fee
reduction if this isn't the case.

*"5.7 An Event may be cancelled if fewer than 12 cars are available for
it." - Sporting regs.

[Bigbird]

Post by Mark Jackson

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster
I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1
has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

It's not a regulation.* I do have a vague memory of reading that
(most? some?) race organizers are guaranteed 20 entrants by FOM, and
get a fee reduction if this isn't the case.
*"5.7 An Event may be cancelled if fewer than 12 cars are available
for it." - Sporting regs.

You may be thinking of the F1's contracts with the teams that
reportedly state that they may have to run a third car if the grid
drops below 20. I found a cite dated 2014 easily enough.

Alternatively in a 2015 article debating the loss of Red Bull from the
grid:

"Should that happen the 2016 grid would be down to 18 cars which means
if another team falls by the wayside and the grid drops below 18 cars,
Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren are all contracted to race a third car."

A year or two further back it was reported the details of F1's contract
with the FIA states that F1 "must attempt to procure that at last 16
cars participate in the world championship."

That tallies with a promoters contract that was revealed around the
same time.

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to be
able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps it's
their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has
to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up unitl
fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these days (as
there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to mention the expense
of starting on F1 team means that if we lose teams now it would be quite a
while (and quite a few rule changes) before the field filled out again.

It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was looking
tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their history to get a new
title sponsor and then a never-was racer billionaire saw an opportunity to
race in F1 in a 'proper' team vicariously through his son.

[geoff]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird
Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up unitl
fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these days (as
there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to mention the expense
of starting on F1 team means that if we lose teams now it would be quite a
while (and quite a few rule changes) before the field filled out again.

Maybe Daddy could buy Lance a team !

geoff

[~misfit~]

Post by geoff

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird
Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.

Maybe Daddy could buy Lance a team !

LOL. He actually did that in the lower formulas (and we don't know what
deal he has with Williams...). He's certainly used up half-a-seasons worth
of cars over testing and the first four races.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to be
able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps it's
their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has
to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up unitl
fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these days (as
there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to mention the expense
of starting on F1 team means that if we lose teams now it would be quite a
while (and quite a few rule changes) before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was looking
tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their history to get a new
title sponsor and then a never-was racer billionaire saw an opportunity to
race in F1 in a 'proper' team vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to
be able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps it's
their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has
to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was looking
tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their history to get
a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer billionaire saw an
opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team vicariously through his
son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head with his
own dreams and making sure his son has the best of everything (including
support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry 'Stroll') ensured his son got his
super licence.

http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to
be able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps it's
their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1 has
to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was looking
tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their history to get
a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer billionaire saw an
opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team vicariously through his
son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head with his
own dreams and making sure his son has the best of everything (including
support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry 'Stroll') ensured his son got his
super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy

You talk some absolute shite at times.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to
be able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps
it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1
has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was
looking tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their
history to get a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer
billionaire saw an opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team
vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head
with his own dreams and making sure his son has the best of
everything (including support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry
'Stroll') ensured his son got his super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy
You talk some absolute shite at times.

Are you familiar with the FACT that if you start something at a young enough
age you can become quite good at it - even if you have no natural
inclination? I mean it's so well known that the Russians started training
gymnasts etc. from the age they could walk and won gold medals...

The thing is the child needs to be committed to the endeavour before they
are able to make the decision themselves. So who makes the decision? As for
the Ferrari thing not only was he training his son before he could walk but
he owned a large Ferrari dealership and was a repeat buyer of
limited-edition cars. In other words into Ferrari (and vice-versa) for
millions already. It stands to reason Ferrari would take the boy on after
all that hard woirk and staunch support.

It's only shite if you don't understand. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

[Bobster]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to
be able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps
it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1
has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was
looking tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their
history to get a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer
billionaire saw an opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team
vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head
with his own dreams and making sure his son has the best of
everything (including support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry
'Stroll') ensured his son got his super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy
You talk some absolute shite at times.

Are you familiar with the FACT that if you start something at a young enough
age you can become quite good at it - even if you have no natural
inclination?

That's actually quite an amusing way to start the response.

Post by ~misfit~
I mean it's so well known that the Russians started training
gymnasts etc. from the age they could walk and won gold medals...
The thing is the child needs to be committed to the endeavour before they
are able to make the decision themselves. So who makes the decision? As for
the Ferrari thing not only was he training his son before he could walk but
he owned a large Ferrari dealership and was a repeat buyer of
limited-edition cars. In other words into Ferrari (and vice-versa) for
millions already. It stands to reason Ferrari would take the boy on after
all that hard woirk and staunch support.

These are tricky waters. Most F1 drivers started in karts when they were very young. Hamilton was 8. Raikkonen was 10. Button was 8. And etc etc etc

Now, how able are those kids, at that age, to make the decision and understand all the implications? This question applies not just to kart racers but to young kids in any sport. How much of it is because they want to do it and how much because a parent suggested it or their friends are doing it? Did the young Tiger Woods just want to play golf, or did his Dad see indications of natural talent and decide to nudge things in a certain direction?

We simply don't know - not just with Stroll but with any young sportsperson. In most cases, one hopes, a loving parent would encourage but not too hard, and would give all the support they could.

Stroll senior was able to give a lot of support.

This is similar to the sort of stuff you've spouted before about Vettel - a youngster manipulated by scheming adults with dubious motives. Funny how the guys you don't like all seem to have pushy parents.

Post by ~misfit~
It's only shite if you don't understand. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 01:27:17 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way the
money is distributed between the teams so that there is less
pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay drivers. Under
Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger of becoming the
ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used to
be able to lay claim to membership of that group and perhaps
it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all that
would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but now F1
has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that I
don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate up
unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule changes)
before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was
looking tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their
history to get a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer
billionaire saw an opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team
vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head
with his own dreams and making sure his son has the best of
everything (including support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry
'Stroll') ensured his son got his super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy
You talk some absolute shite at times.

Are you familiar with the FACT that if you start something at a young enough
age you can become quite good at it - even if you have no natural
inclination?

Evidence?

Post by ~misfit~
I mean it's so well known that the Russians started training
gymnasts etc. from the age they could walk and won gold medals...

And you seriously think they just pick a bunch of kids at random?

Post by ~misfit~
The thing is the child needs to be committed to the endeavour before they
are able to make the decision themselves. So who makes the decision? As for
the Ferrari thing not only was he training his son before he could walk but
he owned a large Ferrari dealership and was a repeat buyer of
limited-edition cars. In other words into Ferrari (and vice-versa) for
millions already. It stands to reason Ferrari would take the boy on after
all that hard woirk and staunch support.
It's only shite if you don't understand. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

It looks like you don't know the difference between shite and pearls.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 5 May 2017 01:27:17 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way
the money is distributed between the teams so that there is
less pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay
drivers. Under Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger
of becoming the ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and
well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used
to be able to lay claim to membership of that group and
perhaps it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all
that would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but
now F1 has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that
I don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate
up unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule
changes) before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was
looking tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their
history to get a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer
billionaire saw an opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team
vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head
with his own dreams and making sure his son has the best of
everything (including support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry
'Stroll') ensured his son got his super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy
You talk some absolute shite at times.

Are you familiar with the FACT that if you start something at a
young enough age you can become quite good at it - even if you have
no natural inclination?

Evidence?

Seriously? I'm not here to give you a free education.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~
I mean it's so well known that the Russians started training
gymnasts etc. from the age they could walk and won gold medals...

And you seriously think they just pick a bunch of kids at random?

No, they mostly picked children from parents who showed talent - much like
how the son of a racer (or wannabe in this case) often gets put in a go kart
the moment they're done with their stroller.

Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life - or the
need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be seen in
Rosberg's example. He was a bright kid who's dad wanted him to be a
successful racing driver. In later years he rarely seemed happy in the role
(and it showed in how the whole team behaved). The moment he won the WDC he
retired, job done, dad happy and now he can claim his life for himself. I
admire him for not only sticking with it and achieving the goal but also
walking away.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~
The thing is the child needs to be committed to the endeavour before
they are able to make the decision themselves. So who makes the
decision? As for the Ferrari thing not only was he training his son
before he could walk but he owned a large Ferrari dealership and was
a repeat buyer of limited-edition cars. In other words into Ferrari
(and vice-versa) for millions already. It stands to reason Ferrari
would take the boy on after all that hard woirk and staunch support.
It's only shite if you don't understand. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

It looks like you don't know the difference between shite and pearls.

Been out of school long? The scoolyard refrain "it's not me it's you"
doesn't carry much weight in adult life. We prefer reasoned and
knowledgeable discussion.

[t***@gmail.com]

We prefer reasoned and knowledgeable discussion.

but not with a cunt

[~misfit~]

Post by t***@gmail.com

We prefer reasoned and knowledgeable discussion.

but not with a cunt

Certainly not - unless it belongs to a very sexy and talented ventriloquist
that is. (Not that that would interest you of course...)

[Bigbird]

Post by t***@gmail.com

We prefer reasoned and knowledgeable discussion.

but not with a cunt

That's taking it a bit personally... but does show some self
awareness... which I guess is progress.

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by t***@gmail.com

We prefer reasoned and knowledgeable discussion.

but not with a cunt

That's taking it a bit personally... but does show some self
awareness... which I guess is progress.

Heh!

[geoff]

Post by Bigbird

Post by t***@gmail.com

We prefer reasoned and knowledgeable discussion.

but not with a cunt

That's taking it a bit personally... but does show some self
awareness... which I guess is progress.

Naa, they are actually useful.

geoff

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:13:17 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 5 May 2017 01:27:17 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 4 May 2017 23:01:38 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 3 May 2017 17:11:24 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by Bobster

Post by ~misfit~
Step one, which Brawn has prioritised, is to change the way
the money is distributed between the teams so that there is
less pressure on the 'other six' teams* to take on pay
drivers. Under Bernie most of the field in F1 was in danger
of becoming the ultimate fun park for the ultra-rich (and
well-managed whores).
[*] It seems there are currently only four teams who are
well-funded enough to employ drivers solely for their driving
skill. Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren. Williams used
to be able to lay claim to membership of that group and
perhaps it's their relegation that's the trigger for change?

I don't think so. It's the fact that teams are teetering on the
financial edge. Manor went under. Sauber came close. And all
that would have been regrettable but no more decades ago, but
now F1 has to have 20 cars in the race.

Are you sure about that? "but now" implies a recent change that
I don't recall and I'm pretty sure the assertion is inaccurate
up unitl fairly recently.

Also it's not as if there are teams lining up to race in F1 these
days (as there were in days of yore). The whole process, not to
mention the expense of starting on F1 team means that if we lose
teams now it would be quite a while (and quite a few rule
changes) before the field filled out again.
It wasn't that long ago that Williams' continued presence was
looking tenuous. Fortunately they were able to trade on their
history to get a new title sponsor and then a never-was racer
billionaire saw an opportunity to race in F1 in a 'proper' team
vicariously through his son.

Did he buy his son's super licence?

Essentially yes. By buying teams, owning tracks, filling his head
with his own dreams and making sure his son has the best of
everything (including support crew) Lawrence Strulovitch (sorry
'Stroll') ensured his son got his super licence.
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/

And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have - or maybe his
daddy also paid competitors to let him win - as well as bribing
Ferrari to let him join their Driving Academy
You talk some absolute shite at times.

Are you familiar with the FACT that if you start something at a
young enough age you can become quite good at it - even if you have
no natural inclination?

Evidence?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. You made a claim, I'd like to see you back it up.

Post by ~misfit~
I'm not here to give you a free education.

Backing up a claim with actual evidence is not a free education. Your
answer suggests that you have no evidence, it's just something you've
decided with your superior intellect.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~
I mean it's so well known that the Russians started training
gymnasts etc. from the age they could walk and won gold medals...

And you seriously think they just pick a bunch of kids at random?

No, they mostly picked children from parents who showed talent - much like
how the son of a racer (or wannabe in this case) often gets put in a go kart
the moment they're done with their stroller.

Again, evidence?

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life - or the
need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be seen in
Rosberg's example. He was a bright kid who's dad wanted him to be a
successful racing driver. In later years he rarely seemed happy in the role
(and it showed in how the whole team behaved). The moment he won the WDC he
retired, job done, dad happy and now he can claim his life for himself. I
admire him for not only sticking with it and achieving the goal but also
walking away.

Again you claim to be able to read the thoughts of people you don't
know. No evidence needed of course, your superior intellect is quite
enough to show these things are true.

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~
The thing is the child needs to be committed to the endeavour before
they are able to make the decision themselves. So who makes the
decision? As for the Ferrari thing not only was he training his son
before he could walk but he owned a large Ferrari dealership and was
a repeat buyer of limited-edition cars. In other words into Ferrari
(and vice-versa) for millions already. It stands to reason Ferrari
would take the boy on after all that hard woirk and staunch support.
It's only shite if you don't understand. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

It looks like you don't know the difference between shite and pearls.

Been out of school long?

Depend what you mean by "out of school". I left school at 17 with a
handful of O levels and went back 41 years later to do a degree and a
Masters which I finished last year. So 47 years or 1 year "out of
school" - take your pick.

Post by ~misfit~
The scoolyard refrain "it's not me it's you"
doesn't carry much weight in adult life. We prefer reasoned and
knowledgeable discussion.

[bra]

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life - or the
need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be seen in
Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember my sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her at the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when she hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of times. Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can never know the inner life.

I think it was Shirley Temple who learned to cry at the drop of a hat? In an early film, the director came to her just before her shot, and told her that her dog at home had just died. It worked, and she kept that "learning" to use ever afterwards. God preserve us from stage parents and handlers.

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life
- or the need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be
seen in Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an
Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember my
sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her at
the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when she
hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of times.
Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can never know
the inner life.
I think it was Shirley Temple who learned to cry at the drop of a
hat? In an early film, the director came to her just before her
shot, and told her that her dog at home had just died. It worked,
and she kept that "learning" to use ever afterwards. God preserve us
from stage parents and handlers.

Amen.

There are few things more evil than a parent (or other agency) aggressively
turning a child into what they want them to be rather than letting them be
who they are.

Of course all parents influence the development of their children (and who
they turn out to be) but there's a world of difference between being
supportive and nurturing and being domineering and manipulative.

[~misfit~]

Back to the subject matter...

I see that Stroll is once again a second slower than ex-retiree Massa in
qualifying. Only two other cars qualified slower than a car that, in Massa's
hands made it into Q3.

This is the fifth race yeah? Added to the half a dozen private sessions he
had last year in a 2014 Williams and a 20 strong factory team you'd think
he'd be doing better than that by now. If he was any good that is....

[Bobster]

Post by ~misfit~
Back to the subject matter...
I see that Stroll is once again a second slower than ex-retiree Massa in
qualifying.

Illusory. In the session in which they both ran, Stroll was less than 3/10 off of Massa and 1.5 off of Hamilton. Massa was nearly a second faster in Q2 than in Q3. Everybody who ran in Q2 turned in a faster time than they had in Q1.

[Bobster]

Post by Bobster
Massa was nearly a second faster in Q2 than in Q3. Everybody who ran in Q2 turned in a faster time than they had in Q1.

Uh! Where's the coffee. Massa was a second faster in Q2 than in *Q1*.

[~misfit~]

Post by ~misfit~
Back to the subject matter...
I see that Stroll is once again a second slower than ex-retiree Massa
in qualifying. Only two other cars qualified slower than a car that,
in Massa's hands made it into Q3.
This is the fifth race yeah? Added to the half a dozen private
sessions he had last year in a 2014 Williams and a 20 strong factory
team you'd think he'd be doing better than that by now. If he was any
good that is....

LOL, I wonder what Stroll senior thought as his son, driving a car with a
2017 Mercedes engine, was passed by the slower of the two Saubers (running a
2016 Ferrari donk) two-thirds of the way through the race? At least he
finished the race - even if it was dead last and 2 laps down. That's a
hundred million or so Canadian dollars well spent!

(I noticed that Massa, recovering from his damage and puncture sat behind
Stroll for a few laps likely not wanting to metaphorically bite the hand
that feeds Williams and by proxy his familia. However as he watched other
cars come up behind his racing instinct kicked in and he finally overtook
his limping team mate - as did the last few runners.)

[Bobster]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life - or the
need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be seen in
Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember my sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her at the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when she hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of times. Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can never know the inner life.
I think it was Shirley Temple who learned to cry at the drop of a hat? In an early film, the director came to her just before her shot, and told her that her dog at home had just died. It worked, and she kept that "learning" to use ever afterwards. God preserve us from stage parents and handlers.

Yes. But it's not a binary thing. There's a gradient. Some folks will figure out they can make a living out of their kids and exploit that. Others will see some sign of something and pursue it to try and maximise a gift they think their kid has and should be able to express. And there are plenty of points in between.

[Martin Harran]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life - or the
need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can be seen in
Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember my sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her at the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when she hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of times. Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can never know the inner life.

Well, according to Shaun's theory, she was so good because she started
young, not necessarily because she had any natural talent.

Post by bra
I think it was Shirley Temple who learned to cry at the drop of a hat? In an early film, the director came to her just before her shot, and told her that her dog at home had just died. It worked, and she kept that "learning" to use ever afterwards. God preserve us from stage parents and handlers.

Indeed. Lena Zavaroni is another sad case that comes to mind.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life
- or the need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can
be seen in Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an
Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember
my sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her
at the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when
she hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of
times. Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can
never know the inner life.

Well, according to Shaun's theory, she was so good because she started
young, not necessarily because she had any natural talent.

I'd explain it to you but you can't teach an old dog new tricks. (Think
about it.... )

Also I said that usually it happens with either kids who've shown talent
and/or whose parents are fanatical about the sport. Try to keep up.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra
I think it was Shirley Temple who learned to cry at the drop of a
hat? In an early film, the director came to her just before her
shot, and told her that her dog at home had just died. It worked,
and she kept that "learning" to use ever afterwards. God preserve us
from stage parents and handlers.

Indeed. Lena Zavaroni is another sad case that comes to mind.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 14 May 2017 12:45:02 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
Never underestimate the power of imprinting chilndren early in life
- or the need of a child to please his parents. It's strength can
be seen in Rosberg's example.

I was always in awe of Steffi Graf, who could easily have been an
Olympian in sprinting or another field event. But I still remember
my sad disappointment when I read about how her father started her
at the age of 2 years, rewarding her with candy or ice cream when
she hit a tennis ball over their sofa back a certain number of
times. Professionally she was terrific, a role model, but we can
never know the inner life.

Well, according to Shaun's theory, she was so good because she started
young, not necessarily because she had any natural talent.

I'd explain it to you but you can't teach an old dog new tricks. (Think
about it.... )

Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

Post by ~misfit~
Also I said that usually it happens with either kids who've shown talent
and/or whose parents are fanatical about the sport. Try to keep up.

[bra]

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

Let's start a thread:
I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)

Any advance on 60?
BTW, was your Masters at 58 or later?
I left grammar school with two A levels that in 1964 were graded at "D".

[.]

Post by bra

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)

I wasn't aware that universities or any institutes of higher learning
granted degrees or diplomas for accomplishments in tiddlywinks.

[bra]

Post by .

Post by bra

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)

I wasn't aware that universities or any institutes of higher learning
granted degrees or diplomas for accomplishments in tiddlywinks.

Connect the [.] dots and eventually you will get a long line of [.] dots, not that anyone cares.

[.]

Post by bra

Post by .

Post by bra

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)

I wasn't aware that universities or any institutes of higher learning
granted degrees or diplomas for accomplishments in tiddlywinks.

Connect the [.] dots and eventually you will get a long line of [.] dots, not that anyone cares.

I, for one, know that I don't, should you be taking a poll.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by bra

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)
Any advance on 60?
BTW, was your Masters at 58 or later?
I left grammar school with two A levels that in 1964 were graded at "D".

I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

[bra]

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40 years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to university. It would be easy to snipe at later, more fortunate youngsters, but on the whole it's better to get some more education than not. There is a lot I missed, bits and areas of knowledge that I see in other people.

Also, I do not snipe at what are called university or college "drop-outs"; it is better to go for a bit and drop out for whatever reason, than never to go in the first instance.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40 years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to university. It would be easy to snipe at later, more fortunate youngsters, but on the whole it's better to get some more education than not. There is a lot I missed, bits and areas of knowledge that I see in other people.
Also, I do not snipe at what are called university or college "drop-outs"; it is better to go for a bit and drop out for whatever reason, than never to go in the first instance.

I have a degree, but only a three year one. In NZ in 1980 our 7th form at the end of the year had 28 people from 300 who started 3rd form five years earlier, already a big increase over just a few years before.

I don't think lack of an advanced degree has kept me from any jobs. I've never wanted to work in the public sector :p And now 30 years of experience is worth far more than any bit of paper. But it's possible that simply having gone to Stanford or UCB or similar in the mid 80s might have put me in a position to join Sun or Oracle or Apple or whatever early on.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 14 May 2017 12:55:52 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Hoult

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40 years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to university. It would be easy to snipe at later, more fortunate youngsters, but on the whole it's better to get some more education than not. There is a lot I missed, bits and areas of knowledge that I see in other people.
Also, I do not snipe at what are called university or college "drop-outs"; it is better to go for a bit and drop out for whatever reason, than never to go in the first instance.

I have a degree, but only a three year one. In NZ in 1980 our 7th form at the end of the year had 28 people from 300 who started 3rd form five years earlier, already a big increase over just a few years before.
I don't think lack of an advanced degree has kept me from any jobs. I've never wanted to work in the public sector :p

The difference is that you will be doing it for enjoyment and self
satisfaction. That won't make the work any easier but it is a very
different form of motivation - I thoroughly enjoyed doing both my BSc
and my Masters.

And I did learn a lot of stuff I wish I had known years ago!

Post by Bruce Hoult
And now 30 years of experience is worth far more than any bit of paper. But it's possible that simply having gone to Stanford or UCB or similar in the mid 80s might have put me in a position to join Sun or Oracle or Apple or whatever early on.

[Martin Harran]

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40 years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

Similar story here. I had a very successful career as a Management
Consultant but I had to take early retirement in 2007 after a trip
into cardiac care and 5 stents and ongoing issues for a few years. I
wasn't quite ready to vegetate in the corner, however, and I had
always been interested in computing - I had taught myself programming
- so I entered4 year full time honours degree in Applied Computing.
When I completed that, one of my lecturers approached me about taking
on a Masters by Research which the college had got funding for.

I'm now lecturing there part-time :)

Post by bra
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to university. It would be easy to snipe at later, more fortunate youngsters, but on the whole it's better to get some more education than not. There is a lot I missed, bits and areas of knowledge that I see in other people.
Also, I do not snipe at what are called university or college "drop-outs"; it is better to go for a bit and drop out for whatever reason, than never to go in the first instance.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I
can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40
years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my
profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

Similar story here. I had a very successful career as a Management
Consultant but I had to take early retirement in 2007 after a trip
into cardiac care and 5 stents and ongoing issues for a few years. I
wasn't quite ready to vegetate in the corner, however, and I had
always been interested in computing - I had taught myself programming
- so I entered4 year full time honours degree in Applied Computing.
When I completed that, one of my lecturers approached me about taking
on a Masters by Research which the college had got funding for.
I'm now lecturing there part-time :)

Ahhh, an Institute of Technology degree! No wonder you don't know very much
about child development and psychology (or probably all of the other things
that you'd likely learn at a University as opposed to 'trade school'). Good
for you though, just be sure to remind us about it next week as well...

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:37:47 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I
can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40
years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my
profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

Similar story here. I had a very successful career as a Management
Consultant but I had to take early retirement in 2007 after a trip
into cardiac care and 5 stents and ongoing issues for a few years. I
wasn't quite ready to vegetate in the corner, however, and I had
always been interested in computing - I had taught myself programming
- so I entered4 year full time honours degree in Applied Computing.
When I completed that, one of my lecturers approached me about taking
on a Masters by Research which the college had got funding for.
I'm now lecturing there part-time :)

Ahhh, an Institute of Technology degree! No wonder you don't know very much
about child development and psychology (or probably all of the other things
that you'd likely learn at a University as opposed to 'trade school'). Good
for you though, just be sure to remind us about it next week as well...

Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:37:47 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I
can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40
years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my
profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

Similar story here. I had a very successful career as a Management
Consultant but I had to take early retirement in 2007 after a trip
into cardiac care and 5 stents and ongoing issues for a few years. I
wasn't quite ready to vegetate in the corner, however, and I had
always been interested in computing - I had taught myself
programming - so I entered4 year full time honours degree in
Applied Computing. When I completed that, one of my lecturers
approached me about taking on a Masters by Research which the
college had got funding for.
I'm now lecturing there part-time :)

Ahhh, an Institute of Technology degree! No wonder you don't know
very much about child development and psychology (or probably all of
the other things that you'd likely learn at a University as opposed
to 'trade school'). Good for you though, just be sure to remind us
about it next week as well...

Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

*Can be*.

You started by essentially calling me a liar and demanding proof when I
mentioned the /accepted knowledge/ that the younger the person the better
they learn. Then you kept harping on about getting a degree and masters at
190 years of age, as if it made you not only proof to the contrary but also
an authority.

I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then cry when
their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:18:08 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:37:47 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I
can see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40
years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my
profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.

Similar story here. I had a very successful career as a Management
Consultant but I had to take early retirement in 2007 after a trip
into cardiac care and 5 stents and ongoing issues for a few years. I
wasn't quite ready to vegetate in the corner, however, and I had
always been interested in computing - I had taught myself
programming - so I entered4 year full time honours degree in
Applied Computing. When I completed that, one of my lecturers
approached me about taking on a Masters by Research which the
college had got funding for.
I'm now lecturing there part-time :)

Ahhh, an Institute of Technology degree! No wonder you don't know
very much about child development and psychology (or probably all of
the other things that you'd likely learn at a University as opposed
to 'trade school'). Good for you though, just be sure to remind us
about it next week as well...

Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

*Can be*.

*Are* because you constantly engage your mouth before your brain. You
assumed that because my degree is from an Institute of Technology that
I know nothing about child development and psychology. I had
previously mentioned a "very successful career as a Management
Consultant" - it never occurred to you that as a Management
Consultant, I might just know a thing or two about Behavioural
Science, including the impact of childhood development; funnily
enough, that happens to be one of my specialisms and a subject that I
specifically teach on a post graduate diploma course.

Post by ~misfit~
You started by essentially calling me a liar and demanding proof when I
mentioned the /accepted knowledge/ that the younger the person the better
they learn.

No that's not what you said. You claimed that Stroll only got where he
is because he had a rich daddy who bought his way for him.

Post by ~misfit~
Then you kept harping on about getting a degree and masters at
190 years of age, as if it made you not only proof to the contrary but also
an authority.

I was responding to a specific request by another poster; you are the
one who seems fixated about this, apparently even to the extent of you
digging to find out where I did my degree.

The way you go on about rich people and other people's qualifications
suggest a rather large chip on your shoulder; that is another
characteristic of pricks.

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then cry when
their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

And I'm always amused by those who mouth off as an expert in something
and quickly show themselves to know very little about what they are
talking about.

[~misfit~]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:18:08 +1200, "~misfit~"

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

*Can be*.

*Are* because you constantly engage your mouth before your brain. You

Obviously that enviable experience of yours allows you evaluate and then to
judge the character of another person from a few posts in a thread - to the
point of knowing what they do 'constantly'.

Post by Martin Harran
assumed that because my degree is from an Institute of Technology that
I know nothing about child development and psychology. I had
previously mentioned a "very successful career as a Management
Consultant"

Not just a career but a "very successful one" (even quoting your own
self-applause now!). Do your cheeks get sore from blowing your own trumpet?

Post by Martin Harran
- it never occurred to you that as a Management
Consultant, I might just know a thing or two about Behavioural
Science, including the impact of childhood development; funnily
enough, that happens to be one of my specialisms

With "specialisms" no less!

When I said how much Stroll snr spent on Lance's career you said:
"And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have?"
Which seems to imply that you are unaware skills are usually learned. In
fact you asked me to prove it. Very very few are innate (other than maybe
breathing). I hope your students can get a refund.

Post by Martin Harran
and a subject that I
specifically teach on a post graduate diploma course.

LOL.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:16:58 +1200, "~misfit~"

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:18:08 +1200, "~misfit~"

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

*Can be*.

*Are* because you constantly engage your mouth before your brain. You

Obviously that enviable experience of yours allows you evaluate and then to
judge the character of another person from a few posts in a thread - to the
point of knowing what they do 'constantly'.

Post by Martin Harran
assumed that because my degree is from an Institute of Technology that
I know nothing about child development and psychology. I had
previously mentioned a "very successful career as a Management
Consultant"

Not just a career but a "very successful one" (even quoting your own
self-applause now!). Do your cheeks get sore from blowing your own trumpet?

Post by Martin Harran
- it never occurred to you that as a Management
Consultant, I might just know a thing or two about Behavioural
Science, including the impact of childhood development; funnily
enough, that happens to be one of my specialisms

With "specialisms" no less!
"And all that gave him driving skills he didn't have?"
Which seems to imply that you are unaware skills are usually learned. In
fact you asked me to prove it. Very very few are innate (other than maybe
breathing). I hope your students can get a refund.

Post by Martin Harran
and a subject that I
specifically teach on a post graduate diploma course.

LOL.

QED

[Bobster]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:18:08 +1200, "~misfit~"

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Martin Harran
Thanks for such a clear demonstration of the total prick that you are.

*Can be*.

*Are* because you constantly engage your mouth before your brain. You

Obviously that enviable experience of yours allows you evaluate and then to
judge the character of another person from a few posts in a thread - to the
point of knowing what they do 'constantly'.

If you weren't so eager to evaluate and judge other people on meagre evidence, and thought yourself so good at it, you and Martin wouldn't be having an argument right now, and other people might feel better inclined towards you.

[.]

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then cry when
their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then cry when
their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

[Bigbird]

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.

Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.

I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

[Sir Tim]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?

You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob Dubery
comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other suspects?

[Bigbird]

Post by Sir Tim
Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?
You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob Dubery
comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other suspects?

That's clever. Can you tell where I am?

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Bigbird
Can you tell where I am?

In your boyfriend's hole.

[Sir Tim]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Sir Tim
Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?
You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob Dubery
comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other suspects?

That's clever. Can you tell where I am?

:-)
You know perfectly well I can't, I don't work for GCHQ.

[Bigbird]

Post by Sir Tim
Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?
You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob Dubery
comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other suspects?

Could you double check. ;)

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Bigbird
Could you double check.

Double check that scab on your penis from gay sex.

[~misfit~]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?
You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob
Dubery comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other
suspects?

It's really not hard to get an email address / gateway with a server in
another coutry - often even free - and use a web interface or 'email client'
to post from it. Then there are proxies...

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
It's really not hard to get an email address / gateway with a server in
another coutry - often even free - and use a web interface or 'email client'
to post from it. Then there are proxies...

change your diaper and go outside

[Sir Tim]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?
You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my very basic
skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada. Bob
Dubery comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any other
suspects?

It's really not hard to get an email address / gateway with a server in
another coutry - often even free - and use a web interface or 'email client'
to post from it. Then there are proxies...

But I thought all that VPN stuff bercame popularas a result of the clamp
down on bit torrents and P2P file sharing. I believe that tgate has been
posting here from the same NNTP posting host for longer than that. In
fact, the other day I opened up a machine I haven't used for years and
found that it still had Forte Agent on it. There was only one name in
the killfile - guess who (these days I don't bother) :-)

[~misfit~]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight
then cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith
on RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile
as this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in
my killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet"
texasgate? You are probably more computer savvy than I am but even my
very
basic skills seem to suggest the tgate is based in Alberta, Canada.
Bob Dubery comes from Johannesburg, so it's presumably not him. Any
other suspects?

It's really not hard to get an email address / gateway with a server
in another coutry - often even free - and use a web interface or
'email client' to post from it. Then there are proxies...

But I thought all that VPN stuff bercame popularas a result of the
clamp down on bit torrents and P2P file sharing.

"Became popular" perhaps but it's been around a lot longer than torrents
have been popular and was widely used for many things by the computer-savvy
previously, spoofing on usenet being one of them. I was aware of spoofing on
usenet in the 1990s.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Post by Sir Tim
I believe that tgate
has been posting here from the same NNTP posting host for longer than
that. In fact, the other day I opened up a machine I haven't used for
years and found that it still had Forte Agent on it. There was only
one name in the killfile - guess who (these days I don't bother) :-)

[~misfit~]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?

Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious candidate is
Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.

The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a Formula 1
group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his homosexual
fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and he's actually said a
thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably high level of understanding
of the sport.

So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of the
subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he wouldn't,
instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to say but doesn't want
to be held accountable for. It's the simplest answer to a strange
psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor says the simplest answer is
usually correct.

Also Tex posts in bursts (sometimes answering the same post multiple times
15 minutes apart but usually in less than an hour). This points to someone
making an effort to take on the mantle of a homocentric Texan, posting while
so attired then, before logging out of their alter ego and while the blood's
up going back over the group to see if they want to add something.

An interesting excercise is to compare posting times and see who wasn't
posting during 'Tex times' (which are often up to an hour or so at a time -
suggesting that maybe they also use the fiction elsewhere - or perhaps they
have trouble typing one-handed) but who is normally active at those times.
If you want to do this I suggest checking historical posts as maybe patterns
will change now...

I've come to my own conclusions and have now set my newsreader to not show
the homosexual rants of someone without the balls to stand behind what they
say.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious candidate is
Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.
The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a Formula 1
group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his homosexual
fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and he's actually said a
thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably high level of understanding
of the sport.
So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of the
subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he wouldn't,
instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to say but doesn't want
to be held accountable for. It's the simplest answer to a strange
psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor says the simplest answer is
usually correct.
Also Tex posts in bursts (sometimes answering the same post multiple times
15 minutes apart but usually in less than an hour). This points to someone
making an effort to take on the mantle of a homocentric Texan, posting while
so attired then, before logging out of their alter ego and while the blood's
up going back over the group to see if they want to add something.
An interesting excercise is to compare posting times and see who wasn't
posting during 'Tex times' (which are often up to an hour or so at a time -
suggesting that maybe they also use the fiction elsewhere - or perhaps they
have trouble typing one-handed) but who is normally active at those times.
If you want to do this I suggest checking historical posts as maybe patterns
will change now...
I've come to my own conclusions and have now set my newsreader to not show
the homosexual rants of someone without the balls to stand behind what they
say.

Put down the pipe.

[Sir Tim]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your zenith on
RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as worthwhile as
this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers in my
killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet" texasgate?

Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious candidate is
Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.
The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a Formula 1
group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his homosexual
fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and he's actually said a
thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably high level of understanding
of the sport.
So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of the
subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he wouldn't,
instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to say but doesn't want
to be held accountable for. It's the simplest answer to a strange
psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor says the simplest answer is
usually correct.

Occam's Razor suggests to me that he is a simple old-fashioned troll who
imagines that folk here will be shocked by his comments. Why he should
have settled on this ng I have no idea but, as you say, he seems to have
a good knowledge of motor racing so is probably a fan.

The desire to shock, especially under a cloak of anonymity, accounts for
much of the graffiti one sees scrawled on the walls of public lavatories.

[Bigbird]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a
fight then cry when their first blow isn't the only one
thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually
repeats the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's
kill filed and too afraid to engage in discussion. The
irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your
zenith on RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as
worthwhile as this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers
in my killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet"
texasgate?

Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious
candidate is Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.
The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a
Formula 1 group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his
homosexual fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and
he's actually said a thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably
high level of understanding of the sport.
So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of
the subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he
wouldn't, instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to
say but doesn't want to be held accountable for. It's the simplest
answer to a strange psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor
says the simplest answer is usually correct.

Occam's Razor suggests to me that he is a simple old-fashioned troll
who imagines that folk here will be shocked by his comments. Why he
should have settled on this ng I have no idea but, as you say, he
seems to have a good knowledge of motor racing so is probably a fan.
The desire to shock, especially under a cloak of anonymity, accounts
for much of the graffiti one sees scrawled on the walls of public
lavatories.

Just to erode the notion that Shaun is completely deluded I did
consider this notion a few months ago and there was and still is some
compelling circumstancial evidence suggesting a close relationship
between Bobby boy and TG.

Have you for instance considered why the post around the same time even
when it is 4am in Johannesburg? 8pm in Alberta. I have noticed this
happen regularly.

I have considered that BD/TG might have one machine set up with VPN and
another without or using a different VPN. VPN may be recently popular
but they are by no means just recently common.

Do you recall when (he claims) he was laid up in bed with just the one
machine to hand and made that ridiculous attempt at nymshifting as
Abdul? He blatantly lied about it still posting as Abdul but under the
nym Bobster? Hilarious. You can see why he would need to use two
machines. :) Texasgate had been strangely quiet for a while beforehand.

Then there is Bobster defending Texasgate's homophobia and this little
thing the have going on where TG reponds almost exclusively to the
posters that Bobster has a problem with.

Yah, see when the circumstances pile up Ocams Razor takes a new
perspective.

I am not saying they are one and the same, maybe they just chat a lot;
Bobby does have a habit of contacting posters off group. I'm just
saying that when you notice these things when you are not even looking
there may be a closer relationship than is obvious.

BTW is it just me or have you ever suspected that out current TG is not
the original? I have this recollection that the original, relatively
shortlived TG was quite a wit. It's very rare for this current version
to show any true wit at all.

(ps listening to the Jack Aubrey novels. Enjoying them greatly so far;
halfway through the second. Not sure if I would have enjoyed reading
them as I may have become impatient with the second. Perfect
accompaniment to my chores though.)

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a
fight then cry when their first blow isn't the only one
thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually
repeats the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's
kill filed and too afraid to engage in discussion. The
irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your
zenith on RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as
worthwhile as this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers
in my killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet"
texasgate?

Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious
candidate is Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.
The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a
Formula 1 group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his
homosexual fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and
he's actually said a thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably
high level of understanding of the sport.
So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of
the subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he
wouldn't, instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to
say but doesn't want to be held accountable for. It's the simplest
answer to a strange psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor
says the simplest answer is usually correct.

Occam's Razor suggests to me that he is a simple old-fashioned troll
who imagines that folk here will be shocked by his comments. Why he
should have settled on this ng I have no idea but, as you say, he
seems to have a good knowledge of motor racing so is probably a fan.
The desire to shock, especially under a cloak of anonymity, accounts
for much of the graffiti one sees scrawled on the walls of public
lavatories.

Just to erode the notion that Shaun is completely deluded I did
consider this notion a few months ago and there was and still is some
compelling circumstancial evidence suggesting a close relationship
between Bobby boy and TG.
Have you for instance considered why the post around the same time
even when it is 4am in Johannesburg? 8pm in Alberta. I have noticed
this happen regularly.
I have considered that BD/TG might have one machine set up with VPN
and another without or using a different VPN. VPN may be recently
popular but they are by no means just recently common.
Do you recall when (he claims) he was laid up in bed with just the one
machine to hand and made that ridiculous attempt at nymshifting as
Abdul? He blatantly lied about it still posting as Abdul but under the
nym Bobster? Hilarious. You can see why he would need to use two
machines. :) Texasgate had been strangely quiet for a while
beforehand.
Then there is Bobster defending Texasgate's homophobia and this little
thing the have going on where TG reponds almost exclusively to the
posters that Bobster has a problem with.
Yah, see when the circumstances pile up Ocams Razor takes a new
perspective.

This. ^ ^ Perspective changes with how much data you have available.

Post by Bigbird
I am not saying they are one and the same, maybe they just chat a lot;
Bobby does have a habit of contacting posters off group. I'm just
saying that when you notice these things when you are not even looking
there may be a closer relationship than is obvious.

Well said! I don't come to a newsgroup with the intent to analyse the shit
out of everything but my mind is a strange thing... Even when I'm doing
something to relax there are subroutines running that quietly and
subconsciously collects all sorts of random data (dammit! I wish I could
quiet it sometimes!). Occasionally, due to this background data collecting
and sorting I find that I know things - things that other people don't. I've
been accused of being psychic in the past but that's not the (whole) story.
<g>

The worst part of it is sometimes I'm asked to explain why I think blah blah
blah... (Usually on line, my RL friends just accept that I gather more data
than most and am usually right about these things.*) Because the whole
process isn't done consciously I'm often not able to access the reasons why
I've developed certain beliefs.

[*] Such as a time when I told my parents that I thought their 'good
christian' neighbour who adopted children from conflict zones around the
world might be a paedophile. I'd worked with him at a cabintemaking business
for a year and shared a commute so had a large data-set... My parents were
shocked and took it out on me, said I was crazy and what was wrong with me
to think such a thing? It ruined our relationship for a few years - until
they came to me one day out of the blue apologising, with the news that he'd
been arrested and charged with raping and molesting *eight* children under
his and his wifes care....

At the time I couldn't say how I 'knew' about the guy. At the time I could
only say was that it was a feeling I got. However as I got older I've come
to realise how my mind works. It's sometimes like a behavoural analysis
specialist but without the conscious thought part of the equation. Over the
years female friends would ask me what I thought of guys they liked - and
often made decisions based on my 'gut'. It's been suggested to me that I
could make a very good living as a jury consultant - except to get into the
field you need to show you have degrees in psychology etc.

The biggest downside of these subroutines is trying to shut them down at
night so I can sleep. I've been an insomniac since I was a child and in the
last decade have resorted to taking benzodiazapeines to quiet my dammned
brain enough to rest.

Sorry for the long blurb - it's just that seeing you talk about noticing
things when you're not looking for them resonates with me and I've not known
a lot of people who really consider the concept.

Post by Bigbird
BTW is it just me or have you ever suspected that out current TG is
not the original? I have this recollection that the original,
relatively shortlived TG was quite a wit. It's very rare for this
current version to show any true wit at all.

I noticed that too but thought it might be down to the reason for the
alternate persona having changed over time - perhaps as the primary persona
was exposed as a manipulative serial disputer?

Post by Bigbird
(ps listening to the Jack Aubrey novels. Enjoying them greatly so far;
halfway through the second. Not sure if I would have enjoyed reading
them as I may have become impatient with the second. Perfect
accompaniment to my chores though.)

Handy to know and something to keep in mind. ;)

[~misfit~]

Post by ~misfit~
[*] Such as a time when I told my parents that I thought their 'good
christian' neighbour who adopted children from conflict zones around
the world might be a paedophile.

To be clear I'm not in the habit of accusing people of being kiddy-fiddlers
without evidence at all. I mentioned my suspicions to my parents as the
girls often visited my mother and spent time with her gardenig etc. and
always seemed very reluctant to go home (more data...). The only reason I
mentioned it at all was in case she had her own suspicions and/or to alert
her to the possibility - and that it would go no further if unfounded.

In the end it was good that I did as it was my mother who called the police
after she noticed one of the girls getting very upset when Mum told her that
it was late and she should go home. Mum recalled what I said and carefully
told the girl that she could tell her anything and that she would make sure
nothing bad happened to her...

That girl now has children of her own and still writes to Mum regularly. I
know this is extremely OT and that I've mentioned this here before but there
are 'new' members here now and I just wanted to be clear that I don't bandy
around accusations of paedophillia.

[Bigbird]

Post by ~misfit~
Well said! I don't come to a newsgroup with the intent to analyse the
shit out of everything but my mind is a strange thing... Even when
I'm doing something to relax there are subroutines running that
quietly and subconsciously collects all sorts of random data (dammit!
I wish I could quiet it sometimes!). Occasionally, due to this
background data collecting and sorting I find that I know things -
things that other people don't. I've been accused of being psychic in
the past but that's not the (whole) story. <g>

Shh... I said you might not be deluded... try not to spoil it. ;)

[~misfit~]

Post by Bigbird

Post by ~misfit~
Well said! I don't come to a newsgroup with the intent to analyse the
shit out of everything but my mind is a strange thing... Even when
I'm doing something to relax there are subroutines running that
quietly and subconsciously collects all sorts of random data (dammit!
I wish I could quiet it sometimes!). Occasionally, due to this
background data collecting and sorting I find that I know things -
things that other people don't. I've been accused of being psychic in
the past but that's not the (whole) story. <g>

Shh... I said you might not be deluded... try not to spoil it. ;)

Heh! I'm reminded of the old adage "it's better to be quiet and be thought a
fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". ;)

[Sir Tim]

Post by Bigbird

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Sir Tim

Post by ~misfit~

Post by Bigbird

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a
fight then cry when their first blow isn't the only one
thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually
repeats the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's
kill filed and too afraid to engage in discussion. The
irony is truly stifling.

Oh look, a forwarding service; looks like you reached your
zenith on RASF1.
Nothing you have ever said or will ever say will be as
worthwhile as this one selfless act.

The irony is that Tex joined the small group of serial arguers
in my killfile on Monday so I didn't see it.
I wonder if another sockpuppet will appear presently?

Whom do you suspect of having his hand up the "sockpuppet"
texasgate?

Sorry, missed this bit in my other reply. The most obvious
candidate is Dubery but I'm not 100% sure.
The thing is Tex isn't a complete personality. 'He' frequents a
Formula 1 group for a reason yeah? He almost always rants about his
homosexual fantasies but once or twice the mask has slipped and
he's actually said a thing or two about F1 that showed a reasonably
high level of understanding of the sport.
So why would an F1 fan come here to just fantasise about sodomy with
regulars in a fairly specific group and not engage in discussion of
the subject at hand (so to speak)? The logical answer is that he
wouldn't, instead 'he' was created to say what a regular wants to
say but doesn't want to be held accountable for. It's the simplest
answer to a strange psychological quandry and, as Occam's razor
says the simplest answer is usually correct.

Occam's Razor suggests to me that he is a simple old-fashioned troll
who imagines that folk here will be shocked by his comments. Why he
should have settled on this ng I have no idea but, as you say, he
seems to have a good knowledge of motor racing so is probably a fan.
The desire to shock, especially under a cloak of anonymity, accounts
for much of the graffiti one sees scrawled on the walls of public
lavatories.

Just to erode the notion that Shaun is completely deluded I did
consider this notion a few months ago and there was and still is some
compelling circumstancial evidence suggesting a close relationship
between Bobby boy and TG.
Have you for instance considered why the post around the same time even
when it is 4am in Johannesburg? 8pm in Alberta.

Can't say I have.

Post by Bigbird
I have noticed this
happen regularly.
I have considered that BD/TG might have one machine set up with VPN and
another without or using a different VPN. VPN may be recently popular
but they are by no means just recently common.

Okay

Post by Bigbird
Do you recall when (he claims) he was laid up in bed with just the one
machine to hand and made that ridiculous attempt at nymshifting as
Abdul? He blatantly lied about it still posting as Abdul but under the
nym Bobster? Hilarious. You can see why he would need to use two
machines. :) Texasgate had been strangely quiet for a while beforehand.

I think he has admitted his own incompetence over this.

Post by Bigbird
Then there is Bobster defending Texasgate's homophobia and this little
thing the have going on where TG reponds almost exclusively to the
posters that Bobster has a problem with.

Bob has denigrated TG quite strongly on at least one occasion (although
this could, of course, support your view :-)). The latter point
certainly seems valid.

Post by Bigbird
Yah, see when the circumstances pile up Ocams Razor takes a new
perspective.
I am not saying they are one and the same, maybe they just chat a lot;
Bobby does have a habit of contacting posters off group. I'm just
saying that when you notice these things when you are not even looking
there may be a closer relationship than is obvious.

And I'm not saying that they are *not* one and the same. Shaun seems
determined that they are, but then he is rather inclined to form
immediate, subjective opinions and react emotionally when these are
challenged, viz: Webber, Vettel, Stroll et al.

Bob is sometimes argumentative and often verbose but I think you have to
have a streak of paranoia to read any deep psychological intent into his
posts.

Post by Bigbird
BTW is it just me or have you ever suspected that out current TG is not
the original? I have this recollection that the original, relatively
shortlived TG was quite a wit. It's very rare for this current version
to show any true wit at all.

Interesting point. Yes, I too remember that the TG of years ago actually
showed occasional glimpses of wit and I suppose he would be an ideal
candidate for a takeover. If one could be bothered it might be
interesting to look back through DejaNews, or whatever it's now called.

Post by Bigbird
(ps listening to the Jack Aubrey novels. Enjoying them greatly so far;
halfway through the second. Not sure if I would have enjoyed reading
them as I may have become impatient with the second. Perfect
accompaniment to my chores though.)

Glad you are enjoying Aubrey/Maturin. I assume you have the unabridged
version read by Ric Jerrom, his narration is superb IMO. Generally the
books seem to get better and better with only the occasional slight miss
(I'm now on Book 14).

[Bigbird]

Post by .

Post by ~misfit~
I'm always amused by people who swagger in and pick a fight then
cry when their first blow isn't the only one thrown.

Says the coward who proudly announces and continually repeats
the litany of newsgroup denizens with whom he's kill filed and
too afraid to engage in discussion. The irony is truly stifling.

Nested irony; zero self-awareness.

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by Bruce Hoult
I've been thinking about writing a Master's or PhD thesis, but I can
see I need to leave it another decade as I'm only 54 now.

Do it sometime!
I realize that I posted only because I was self-conscious for 40
years about not having a degree. Nonetheless I was successful in my
profession, surrounded by Masters and PhD's.
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to
university.

I bet the percentage of *grammar school* leavers was more like 50% or higher
though. (I went to grammar school in the early 1970s until my parents took
me out and dragged me halfway around the world to live in [very] rural
NZ...)

Post by bra
It would be easy to snipe at later, more fortunate
youngsters, but on the whole it's better to get some more education
than not. There is a lot I missed, bits and areas of knowledge that
I see in other people.
Also, I do not snipe at what are called university or college
"drop-outs"; it is better to go for a bit and drop out for whatever
reason, than never to go in the first instance.

Agreed.

[bra]

Post by ~misfit~

Post by bra
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to
university.

I bet the percentage of *grammar school* leavers was more like 50% or higher
though. (I went to grammar school in the early 1970s until my parents took
me out and dragged me halfway around the world to live in [very] rural
NZ...)

I was at a grammar, and in 1964 the percentage of those who went on to university was definitely NOT near 50% --- I think maybe 10%. I can remember my own feeling of puzzlement at school when I overheard two friends mentioning which uni they might go to. No-one in my family had gone, or indeed even KNEW anyone who had been to a university.

Bear in mind that in the early and mid sixties, a degree was not a requirement everywhere; you could become an architect or a librarian or an accountant or a teacher without a university degree. Those were self-regulating "professions" who maintained their own training and entrance requirements.

Two effects of an Oxbridge education: Theresa May when she was at Oxford (she got a 2nd in Geography) used to tell her fellow students that she thought she might become prime minister ---.

Whereas Sir Max Beerbohm famously said, "I was a modest, good-humoured boy. It is Oxford that has made me insufferable."

[Bobster]

Post by bra
Bear in mind that in the early and mid sixties, a degree was not a requirement everywhere; you could become an architect or a librarian or an accountant or a teacher without a university degree. Those were self-regulating "professions" who maintained their own training and entrance requirements.

Thanks for that. One puzzle I was left with after reading Mosley's book was how in hell he became a lawyer when his degree was in physics. So the idea of requiring a specific degree in order to enter a given profession is quite new.

[bra]

Post by Bobster
Thanks for that. One puzzle I was left with after reading Mosley's book was how in hell he became a lawyer when his degree was in physics. So the idea of requiring a specific degree in order to enter a given profession is quite new.

In the trades you "apprenticed" and in the professions you "articled". Same thing exactly: you worked with a journeyman (or a professional) and you listened and did what you were shown and told, and kept your mouth shut.

On the trade side: in the late 1950s a 15-year old who was at a loose end, and had dubious friends, used to hang around looking, at a garage "somewhere in Kent". The owner was a stock-car racer, and one day he tossed a broom to the youth and said get to work. The lad responded and helped out bit by bit, until he was soon rebuilding Jaguar engines and maintaining the stock car and travelling the country as a mechanic. He went on to a successful management career in the motor industry, and told me that everything he needed for that success he had learned by his boss's example in that garage and in the stock car racing "circus"; not surprisingly, chief among those were treating people respectfully and doing a proper job well.

[Mark Jackson]

Post by Bobster

Post by bra
Bear in mind that in the early and mid sixties, a degree was not a
requirement everywhere; you could become an architect or a
librarian or an accountant or a teacher without a university
degree. Those were self-regulating "professions" who maintained
their own training and entrance requirements.

Thanks for that. One puzzle I was left with after reading Mosley's
book was how in hell he became a lawyer when his degree was in
physics. So the idea of requiring a specific degree in order to enter
a given profession is quite new.

Beyond a vague sense of the difference between a barrister and a
solicitor I really know nothing about the practice of law in the UK. I
see that after getting his physics degree (Christ Church, Oxford) Mosley
studied law at Gray's Inn for three years; I have no idea whether that
was more like taking a postgraduate degree or an apprenticeship.

In the US admission to legal practice is generally controlled by the
individual states, usually (always?) by a formal exam and sometimes
(usually?) with an additional review for "character and fitness" by a
committee of lawyers. Most - but not all - states require a 3-year
postgraduate degree (J.D.). I don't think there's any restriction on
the flavor of undergraduate degree that precedes this - some colleges
have a formal prelaw major, many don't. Political Science is a popular
choice for those planning on becoming lawyers. Physics is not common
but hardly unheard of - this path mostly produces patent attorneys.

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~

Post by bra
When I left school in 1964, only 5% of school leavers went on to
university.

I bet the percentage of *grammar school* leavers was more like 50%
or higher though. (I went to grammar school in the early 1970s until
my parents took me out and dragged me halfway around the world to
live in [very] rural NZ...)

I was at a grammar, and in 1964 the percentage of those who went on
to university was definitely NOT near 50% --- I think maybe 10%. I
can remember my own feeling of puzzlement at school when I overheard
two friends mentioning which uni they might go to. No-one in my
family had gone, or indeed even KNEW anyone who had been to a
university.

I was in the same boat with nobody in my (distinctly lower class) family
having gone to uni. However I got 142 on my 11+ (Stanford-Binet then) and
into grammar school and it seemed that almost every other pupil was
discussing which university and what subject they were going to study. I
went from a tiny Cotswold primary school to a proud establishment which
started me off learning Latin, French and any number of other subjects that
didn't exist in my previous world.

(Amo Amas Amat Amamus Amatis Amant.... I learned well back then, young as I
was. LOL, checked with Google for spelling as it's been 45 years since I
even thought about that and yes, I remembered it exactly right. <g> I had
no need of Latin ever again as less than a year later I was back in a tiny
sub-100 pupil rural school - this time a NZ secondary school and put two
years ahead. :-/ )

As I'm sure you know back then the 11+ exam graded primary school pupils by
IQ and decided what level of secondary schooling they'd go on to (if indeed
they were going to a 'public' secondary school). Only the top 10% went to
grammar school and I feel sure that the percentage of those who went on to
uni was higher than your figure of 10% but don't have facts to back that
feeling up. As public grammar schools (and the whole 'grading' according to
IQ) was dropped not long after I went through the system there is scant
information or figures available from that era.

Post by bra
Bear in mind that in the early and mid sixties, a degree was not a
requirement everywhere; you could become an architect or a librarian
or an accountant or a teacher without a university degree. Those were
self-regulating "professions" who maintained their own training and
entrance requirements.
Two effects of an Oxbridge education: Theresa May when she was at
Oxford (she got a 2nd in Geography) used to tell her fellow students
that she thought she might become prime minister ---.
Whereas Sir Max Beerbohm famously said, "I was a modest,
good-humoured boy. It is Oxford that has made me insufferable."

Yep. Self-deprecation is common amongst a segment of the higher-educated.
It's usually an attenpt to fit in with the less... fortunate.

[bra]

Post by ~misfit~
I was in the same boat with nobody in my (distinctly lower class) family
having gone to uni. However I got 142 on my 11+ (Stanford-Binet then) and
into grammar school and it seemed that almost every other pupil was
discussing which university and what subject they were going to study.

Dear god, 142. I cannot compete with that: I got two A levels at a "D" level, (in 1964 in my area of England that was a pass). I did have my IQ tested at one time, and it explained my two Ds.

There was and is a wide range/curve of grammar schools, diifering in student intake, and staffing, and reputation, so you must have been to a "good" one, plus you were clever.

My bachelors degree at 60 years comforted me a bit, but the truth is I've long surrounded by people a lot smarter than me. That can be rewarding, but it also reminds you quietly every day what you're lacking ---!

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
I was in the same boat with nobody in my (distinctly lower class)
family having gone to uni. However I got 142 on my 11+
(Stanford-Binet then) and into grammar school and it seemed that
almost every other pupil was discussing which university and what
subject they were going to study.

Dear god, 142. I cannot compete with that: I got two A levels at a
"D" level, (in 1964 in my area of England that was a pass). I did
have my IQ tested at one time, and it explained my two Ds.

LOL, it was a typo also. I got 148 on my 11+ (and 142 on a Mensa thing I did
online in my 30s) - not that it ended up doing me much good. ;-)

Post by bra
There was and is a wide range/curve of grammar schools, diifering in
student intake, and staffing, and reputation, so you must have been
to a "good" one, plus you were clever.

It was an excellent school - at least I thought so. I'd been a fish out of
water through most of primary school as my teachers didn't know what to do
with me. When I got to grammar school, for the first time in my life I felt
I was in the right place. Instead of being top of the class at everything I
was in the top 5 or so. However most importantly to me was that I fitted in!
I wasn't looked upon as a freak. I used to really look forward to school -
moreso than weekends.

Until, after two and a half terms my parents bought the family to NZ and I
was put in a class of 13 year olds at the tender age of 11. I was a 'pommy',
a 'swot' and a bit overweight so not exactly the most popular kid in school.
I stayed two years ahead of my class right through to leaving school, never
really fitting in with my peers (despite 'rebelling' and basically not doing
any school work for the last two years). It was hellacious and I still have
the chronic anxiety order I developed during that time. That's when I took
the nick 'misfit'.

Post by bra
My bachelors degree at 60 years comforted me a bit, but the truth is
I've long surrounded by people a lot smarter than me. That can be
rewarding, but it also reminds you quietly every day what you're
lacking ---!

I envy you. I've often wished for a partial lobotomy. People's conversations
often seemed so pointless and mundane to me and especially now I'm disabled,
I find it very hard to keep my brain 'fed'. Until recently, post accident
and pauperism, I'd never been short of company. I was very popular,
especially as an unpaid 'life coach' (you learn a lot of practical
psychology when you're a misfit). It got to the stage when I used to say
"Sorry but I'm not auditioning for new friends right now" out of frustration
at people trying to befriend me. Yeah I know - the arrogance of youth...

Oh well I'll probably get dementia soon. ;) Serve me right for 'wishing it
away', even fleetingly. ;)

[bra]

Post by ~misfit~
LOL, it was a typo also. I got 148 on my 11+ (and 142 on a Mensa thing I did
online in my 30s) - not that it ended up doing me much good. ;-)
It was an excellent school - at least I thought so. I'd been a fish out of
water through most of primary school as my teachers didn't know what to do
with me. When I got to grammar school, for the first time in my life I felt
I was in the right place. Instead of being top of the class at everything I
was in the top 5 or so.

. In my grammar school there were about 30-33 kids (boys) in each class. For thee years in a row, my name appeared as 30th or 33rd, alternating with another lad called Fred D-----y. I lucked into the school, I suspect. In my home village only three kids passed the 11-plus that year, and I was one.

Quite unfairly in retrospect, my sister did not pass, and went to a so-so secondary modern. She is bright and competent and manages a business and is a councillor. The 11-plus also divided, permanently, many kids in village and town, which more and more I see as a monstrous social mistake.

Oh well, here we are, with the privilege of language and computers and eyesight, what the hell am I complaining about~

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
LOL, it was a typo also. I got 148 on my 11+ (and 142 on a Mensa
thing I did online in my 30s) - not that it ended up doing me much
good. ;-)
It was an excellent school - at least I thought so. I'd been a fish
out of water through most of primary school as my teachers didn't
know what to do with me. When I got to grammar school, for the first
time in my life I felt I was in the right place. Instead of being
top of the class at everything I was in the top 5 or so.

. In my grammar school there were about 30-33 kids (boys) in each
class. For thee years in a row, my name appeared as 30th or 33rd,
alternating with another lad called Fred D-----y. I lucked into the
school, I suspect. In my home village only three kids passed the
11-plus that year, and I was one.

Maybe there was a typo in your result? ;)

Post by bra
Quite unfairly in retrospect, my sister did not pass, and went to a
so-so secondary modern. She is bright and competent and manages a
business and is a councillor. The 11-plus also divided, permanently,
many kids in village and town, which more and more I see as a
monstrous social mistake.

As I mentioned, living on a farm in a tiny Cotswold village I found it hard
to keep my mind busy, resorting to studying insects and aquatic life (there
was a stream at bottom of garden). Also at primary school teachers found it
hard to keep my mind 'fed' and resorted to odd coping mechanisms. I'll never
forget being 'given the slipper' for something that I didn't do. The
teacher, getting ready to beat me asked me again if I did it and I said 'no,
I didn't'. He said he's inclined to believe me 'but let's call it the straw
that broke the camel's back' and proceeded to give me six hard whacks.

For me going to grammar school in a fairly distant town I'd never been to
before, a 75 minute bus trip each way, was the first time in my life I felt
like I belonged somewhere (outside family). I not only got on very well with
other pupils (something I'd always done but it required effort at times) but
actually enjoyed conversations and friendships. I can understand that for
some the splitting up of pupils into one of three scools (grammar, secondary
modern and remedial) acording to their abilities wasn't a good thing but for
me it lead to the happiest time of my life.

Post by bra
Oh well, here we are, with the privilege of language and computers
and eyesight, what the hell am I complaining about~

Heh, indeed. :) As my other always reminds me whenever my disability gets me
down "there's lots worse off".

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
I've often wished for a partial lobotomy. People's conversations
often seemed so pointless and mundane to me and especially now I'm disabled,
I find it very hard to keep my brain 'fed'. Until recently, post accident
and pauperism, I'd never been short of company. I was very popular,
especially as an unpaid 'life coach'

Here is some feed - fuck off

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by ~misfit~
I got 148 on my 11+ (and 142 on a Mensa thing I did
online in my 30s) - not that it ended up doing me much good. ;-)

no shit

[t***@gmail.com]

I was a 'pommy', a 'swot'

Is that a homosexual?

[t***@gmail.com]

post accident and pauperism

All accidents are preventable.
Dump the pity party.

[Martin Harran]

Post by bra

Post by Martin Harran
Well that theory kinda fell apart for me when I went back to school at
58 years of age and got my degree and my Masters.

I got my bachelors degree at the age of 60 {after yonks of correspondence and part-time study], just three months before my adult daughter collected her degree :-)
Any advance on 60?
BTW, was your Masters at 58 or later?

62 when I started, 65 when I finished; should have been finished after
a year earlier but my thesis was delayed for a year due to family
circumstances.

Post by bra
I left grammar school with two A levels that in 1964 were graded at "D".

I left in 68 with 8 O levels, fairly good grades including a couple of
A's. I did go back to start A levels but chucked it in after a couple
of months, just wanted out of school and I was able to get a job in
trainee management with a sizeable local firm.

[bra]

Post by ~misfit~
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/
--
Shaun.

I did some very careful googling before I dared click on a site called JEWOFTHEWEEK, but it appears to be well-meaning, and no doubt seeks to bring the word Jew back into daily inoffensive usage.

JEWOFTHEWEEK is not different in grammatical terms from CHRISTIANOFTHEWEEK, except for the stubborn presence of denigration attached to the word Jew.

Jonathan Miller, of Beyond The Fringe, etc, once poked fun at cautious language; he said "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish --- I don't go all the way."

Historically sad that nobody has felt it best to describe themselves as
I'm Parsiish
I'm Hinduish
I'm Muslimish
I'm Church-of-Englishish,

though the last one is not a bad description of my own wishy washy upbringing!

[~misfit~]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/
--
Shaun.

I did some very careful googling before I dared click on a site
called JEWOFTHEWEEK, but it appears to be well-meaning, and no doubt
seeks to bring the word Jew back into daily inoffensive usage.
JEWOFTHEWEEK is not different in grammatical terms from
CHRISTIANOFTHEWEEK, except for the stubborn presence of denigration
attached to the word Jew.
Jonathan Miller, of Beyond The Fringe, etc, once poked fun at
cautious language; he said "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish --- I don't go
all the way."
Historically sad that nobody has felt it best to describe themselves as
I'm Parsiish
I'm Hinduish
I'm Muslimish
I'm Church-of-Englishish,
though the last one is not a bad description of my own wishy washy upbringing!

I picked that site after googling "Lawrence Strulivitch" and "Ferrari" as it
clearly and concisely stated the (fairly) recent name change and the fact
that senior has been a Ferrari and motor racing fanatic for years and has
Ferrari connections. It's sub-title is "The Ferrari Billionaire and the
World's Youngest F1 Driver".

However I can see how the site name would raise a flag. ;)

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by bra

Post by ~misfit~
http://www.jewoftheweek.net/2016/11/04/jews-of-the-week-lawrence-and-lance-stroll/
--
Shaun.

I did some very careful googling before I dared click on a site called JEWOFTHEWEEK, but it appears to be well-meaning, and no doubt seeks to bring the word Jew back into daily inoffensive usage.
JEWOFTHEWEEK is not different in grammatical terms from CHRISTIANOFTHEWEEK, except for the stubborn presence of denigration attached to the word Jew.
Jonathan Miller, of Beyond The Fringe, etc, once poked fun at cautious language; he said "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish --- I don't go all the way."
Historically sad that nobody has felt it best to describe themselves as
I'm Parsiish
I'm Hinduish
I'm Muslimish
I'm Church-of-Englishish,
though the last one is not a bad description of my own wishy washy upbringing!

In my youth I was dragged to a variety of Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican and Baptist churches based on, as far as I can gather, whatever was nearest at the time.

To be honest I couldn't even tell you what the differences are between them. No doubt there were some, historically, but they don't seem antagonistic towards each other these days.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by ~misfit~
Yet again the best part of a second behind the old guy who came out of
retirement to help Williams fill the other seat.
I wonder if he'll get a few laps under his belt this time - or yet again
'stroll' back to the pits early?

You realize that he had a spin, right?

Do they realize that you crashed into three other passing cars on three other occasions because you had your head up your ass and didn't bother to look before you moved over?

You are a menace on the track.