|
Post by HStorm on Dec 4, 2004 13:51:22 GMT
I'd agree with that. It's also fair to say that most subjects will overlap with many others, so to get a full exploration of a subject we do need some latitude.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 4, 2004 15:27:23 GMT
Exactly, going back to the discussion then, I think we've said all that needs to be said on nuclear power for the moment and so back onto the railways?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 5, 2004 15:10:56 GMT
Just browsed back through the topic, trying to work out how it turned into a row about the railways in the first place. Picking up on the point where it started up, it was Oliver claiming that most of the best thing sin this country were created in "less cushy times".
I'm assuming therefore that, taking his overall stance into account, he's implying that the railways in this country were a product of dictatorship and were at their best during undemocratic times. They weren't of course, they were probably at their best in the late-80's/early-90's, shortly before they were sold off, certainly infinitely superior to what they are now or what they were in the 19th century.
I also note the "mentality-comparisons" Oliver put forward...
I don't see why this should be seen as a given at all. In a Democracy, most people still have to do their jobs if they want to keep them. If people aren't getting their jobs done in the UK, they'll usually lose them, and then what are they s'posed to live on? The motivation to get the job done is therefore no less than it is in a Dictatorship. By contrast, in the USSR - a DICTATORSHIP - there was a law that stipulated that everyone was entitled to have a job, and that they couldn't be sacked no matter how bad they were at it. Motivation is therefore no more certain under a tyrant than under an elected leader.
The only real difference here is what the aims are, not how likely they are to be achieved. And a Dictatorship's aims are usually (by no means always, but usually) less interested in the public good.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Dec 6, 2004 11:33:30 GMT
What exactly is Russia's current state of affairs in terms of it's government? Is it now a democracy, or just a more toned down Communist Dictatorship? I heard that Putin is an ex-KGB colonel.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 6, 2004 16:55:08 GMT
Russia's kind of Democratic-ish. Putin's clearly not in favour of the system, and would jump at the chance of installing a new dictatorship, but he's not had a chance to yet. And yes, he was KGB. And almost certainly behind the Ukraine election crisis.
To be painfully honest, a country the size and state of Russia can only really survive as a dictatorship for any real length of time. To avoid disolving completely, it has to have a very powerful army. To keep the army under control, it has to run the country. Armies are, however, very bad at running countries, so it's a self-destructive cycle. This explains most of the last two hundred-odd years worth of Russia's history.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 6, 2004 17:34:30 GMT
Russia can be considered democratic insofar as it's legal to form political parties there. But the free market economy started by Gorbachev hasn't worked at all over the last fifteen years, and the result has been a resurgence in some areas of Communist support, and in fringe republics a huge tidal wave of separatism.
In fact, in Yeltsin's last Presidential election before he retired, the rebuilt Communist Party almost won, and were only beaten by a very dirty, if clever, trick pulled by the Reformist party. They formed a dummy moderate Socialist Party, and put up a candidate with similar manifesto to the Communist leader, but without such hardline social policies. That was more appealing to the younger strata of the leftist electorate, the practical upshot of which was that the left-wing vote was split just enough for Yeltsin to get back in.
Whether we could really describe this as "democracy in action" is very difficult to say. What I can say with more confidence is that with his actions against Chechnya, Vladimir Putin is no more benevolent or pro-Democratic than Josef Stalin was.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Dec 8, 2004 10:03:07 GMT
Yes, but we all know about Putins recent move towards a dictorship after the school seige.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 8, 2004 16:54:03 GMT
Putin's been moving toward Dictatorship since long before that. His arrest of the owner of Russia's leading power company, and his attempts to nationalise it showed that long before. As did his manifesto, his past and his general outlook on life.
[EDIT: Also, still waiting for those rail figures, Oliver. You did offer to find them for me, and since your dad's 'top brass', it shouldn't be so hard for you.]
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 12, 2004 10:11:27 GMT
COME ON, OLIVER! Where are those rail figures?
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Dec 14, 2004 9:12:30 GMT
What Rail figures?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 14, 2004 10:05:53 GMT
You said;
Obviously you don't intend to actually bother sourcing them out after all.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 14, 2004 15:05:18 GMT
Yes. That's what we've been asking for. So if you'd like to do so with your next post (English compared to France, say. Japan'll be the real test, but I want to go easy on you), that'd be wonderful. Those ones. The ones both I AND you mentioned at least twice during the discussion. The ones I want you to put in your next post so as to back up what you're saying. The ones that you based your claim of British Rail being the finest in the world on. The ones that would blow away my argument and leave me crying out about how wrong I was to have disbelieved you, and how I wish that once, just once, I could be as accurate and as right as you without having to scroll through endless amounts of data to get my information. The ones which clearly don't exist, since your post was hearsay and urban myth. Any (truthful) figures comparing British rail favourably with the 'other' top railways in the world would do. Average delays, for example, except I happen to know Japan's average rail delay is under eight seconds, where ours is closer to eight minutes. That's sixty times as long, and so we don't show up very well. Which is one of the figures I based MY posts on, and MY conclusion that perhaps we're not top dog anymore. Oh, and please try to use RELEVANT figures; data from the 1870s won't do. If you use an average, ensure it's over no longer than the last five years, and preferably over last year only. I'll wait in gleeful anticipation, Oliver. I look forward to the day I read one of your posts and find some solid data to back up what you're saying. I promise you that, the moment I read it, I shall strip off my clothes, hurl them aside as worthless in my sight, and prance nakedly around Manchester city centre howling praises to any God who'll listen, wearing only neon pink stockings and a sandwich board with "OLIVER WAS RIGHT!!!!!!" printed on it in enormous purple letters. And I'll tape it, and upload the video.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 14, 2004 16:02:55 GMT
I've decided that for the duration of the first part of this post I've gone insane and am agreeing with Oliver. I decided to see how hard it really was to find any form of information other than urban myth and hearsay, and by simply typing "2004 Europe Rail Crash Figures" into Google I was able to find this; (Source: The Guardian, found at,http://talk.workunlimited.co.uk/print/0,3858,5058070-103701,00.html but the same text quoted as sourced from the Guardian could be found on at least 1 other website Google gave me.) However, sadly I have now regained my sanity and just as easily found these figures: (Source: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2002/state_of_the_railways/1759569.stm)They may be from 2002, but that's better than 1820 isn't it? Basically Oliver, finding evidence supporting the fact our railway safety is as good as the rest of Europe took me a couple of minutes. Even you could have time to find that AND type a post before someone takes you off the internet. You're just not trying...
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 14, 2004 16:34:09 GMT
To add to my last post, When Naselus told you that you had your average crash figures wrong a while back you said your figures were reaching back before privatisation. You also said this;
Seeing as you couldn't be bothered then I have saved you the effort, going from Nas' previous figures leading back to 99, all the way to 88. Which is 8 years BEFORE Privatisation in 96, and covers your lifetime up to 2004, 8 years AFTER privatisation. As figures from before you were born aren't going to have that much baring on the modern state of the railway, I've stopped at 88.
??/11/88 St. Helens 12/12/88 Clapham Junction 4/3/89 Purley Station 6/3/89 Glasgow ??/8/90 Stafford Station 9/1/91 Cannon St. Station 21/7/91 Newton Station 15/10/94 Cowden 31/1/95 Aisgill 8/8/96 Watford South Junction 19/9/97 Southall 23/6/99 Winsford 5/10/99 Ladbroke Grove 17/10/00 Hatfield 28/2/01 Great Heck 10/5/02 Potters Bar 7/7/03 Evesham 7/11/04 Ufton Nervet
That's from 1988-2004 (which stretches back before privatisation AND is roughly your lifetime, broad enough average 16 years) and I count 18 crashes there. 16/18 comes out at 1.125 and for your sake I will be fair and round down to an average of a crash a year. Not one crash every two years as you claimed. So that's 9 crashes I can see before and 9 after, not a great deal has changed in 16 years in terms of crashes, if anything things have got worse, but certainly no better. If this evidence is still not enough for you, then rather than dismissing it with urban myth then come up with evidence and I mean REAL evidence that you promised a while back, that counters this...
[Edit: By the way, all these, apart from '23/6/99 Winsford' were found on a BBC list of the WORST UK train crashes compiled this year, all of which resulted in loss of at least 1 life. As with Nas' figures, it doesn't include ones where people were simply injured. Doesn't that tell you something, that even just taking the worst crashes still gives a higher average than you claim?]
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 14, 2004 18:32:41 GMT
Thank you, Rob. As those figures show, France and Germany both have far more comprehensive rail networks, their trains are 50% faster (50%!!!), the French ones are considerably better distance-for-money, both France and Germany have fewer delays, and we put the least money into rail development. This is why we believe that our railways might not be the finest in the world. In fact, this is why we find you saying they are so unbeleivably preposterous that we nearly laughed ourselves SICK when you said they were.
In return, you could offer us some figures saying why our trains are so good. Well, obviously you can't, or you would have done so, and besides they don't exist.
Rob was able to get us these figures by spending two minutes with the internet. You, who's father works for the damned railways, and as a damned train enthusiast by your own admission, should not even need the net to quote your figures at us. Apparently, they're 'drummed into you'. Why not tell us some of those figures, then? Put them to good use. Prove us wrong.
Alternatively, you could admit that all that stuff you said about railways was total balls. You could turn around and just say "alright, our railways are a bit shit, actually.". I won't think you less of a man for being able to admit you were wrong. As long as you then start basing your opinions and ideas on FACTS, rather than blind ignorance and unswerving patriotism.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Dec 15, 2004 12:37:38 GMT
Hello everybody.
I will find those things.
They are somewhere at my dads so expect them sometime next week.
ok?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 15, 2004 12:42:46 GMT
Well, seeing as you offered to find us evidence and said you would 'look into' the issue for about a month now then I don't think it is okay. You're quite clearly not as in-the-know about this as you claim to be, otherwise the figures drummed into your would be coming out in droves. 2 minutes with Google is all it took me, and it's taken a so called railway enthusiast over a month and STILL we have yet to see anything remotely like solid evidence from you. Seeing as you took such strong objection to being corrected over the railways then you haven't done much to prove that we should not correct you. I think the time has come for you to simply do as Naselus says, be a man and admit you were wrong on something. Most other people on this forum (including myself on several occasions) have had to admit that in certain issues we were incorrect, no one's going to run you out of town for it. In fact we may even take you a bit more seriously if you didn't launch into a huge defensive on a subject, claim to be an expert and then fail to produce any knowledge. The same is applied to the invasion topic really. Poor show
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Dec 15, 2004 12:47:00 GMT
I thought I had allready addmitted I was wrong? Oh my memory!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 15, 2004 14:04:59 GMT
Well, you haven't in this topic, you've simply said repeatedly you will find facts and then even said you had forgotten even offering them, perhaps you should consider doing it properly.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 15, 2004 15:58:38 GMT
For Gods sake, Oliver, Rob got the facts and figures by taking two minutes with a seach engine. If you ARE basing your claims on any form of fact at all, you don't need to go to your dad. You've spent longer online SAYING you'll get the facts than it actually takes to get them. If you wish to restore even the vaguest amount of credability to your position, either give in and admit that you were spouting a load of utter balls, or stop wasting your precious limited time and ours and just use google. The BBC has accurate data on this sort of thing, and they back us up. Your dad is clearly in a biased position to begin with, and since it'll take over a week to get anything from him just look on the net, and then either provide the figures that make it clear we, and also the largest broadcasting corporation on the planet, are a bunch of liars and bastards, or admit that you were totally wrong and that you had NO basis for your own lies and bullshit.
[EDIT: Oh, and if your memory's so bad, why not actually CHECK? It's all written down here. That's one of the things about it being a forum]
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 15, 2004 20:48:48 GMT
To be honest Oliver, why should we have to spend our time sourcing out facts and figures for you when you clearly have plenty of time to think up excuses, sorry I mean 'reasons' why you can't give us any evidence for what you claim is fact, when you quite clearly can't be bothered to find ANYTHING for yourself? If you're going to make broad and hopelessly innaccurate/laughable/poorly thought out statements and claim then as fact time after time, then at least save everyone a month or two of compiling evidence contrary to what you say by actually checking first.
Take a look at some sources that are reliable, and see if there is evidence to support what you say, if there is then provide it, preferably with where you got it from so we can check it out. Just saying that "I have heard it quoted", "so and so said that" or "I have from a reliable source" really isn't cutting it (this partly applies to you too, Will). If the source is reliable enough then why are you unable to give us a link or any method we can check it up, because if it is as honest as you'd have us believe then we'd need only to look at this source and be convinced.
As it happens, by constantly attempting to get out of a situation where you have been outdone on pure factual basis by stalling and making excuses isn't cutting it either. Nor is getting out by attempting to change your position, or being pedantic over the exact terminology you or someone else used when it's obvious what was actually meant. I know I was surprised at how readily available sources on this topic were, and to prove it I spent 15 minutes compiling what information I had found for you, with links so you could double check what I said. When looking for information on Ukraine then I found so much that I decided to write a whole article, with deep research that was thoroughly sourced out. You do have very loud points of view and quite clearly a mind of your own, however unless you are willing to put some degree of effort into backing up what you claim as facts then you are never going to convincingly win a debate, and that is one fact that is for sure...
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Dec 16, 2004 14:34:37 GMT
Im sorry Rob, But if I were to do that, then I would never post on critique again. Unlike yourself and undoubtedly many others of these fine forums, I don’t have the time to Methodically search out and refine various quotes, facts and figures. I only come here so I can have light-hearted banter with like minded people about subjects I am interested in. To be perfectly honest, I am no longer finding anything of the sort here. I fear to log on for worry about being torn to shreds for lack of knowledge or fact about a subject. I just don’t care for numbers, simply for a nice chat. I think I shall frequent a more suitable forum (http://www.sheridanclub.co.uk/) as an alternative, for there I feel trully at home, and its members do not hound me for facts. They share my passion for Brandy & Cigar discussion.
Farewell Critiqe you have served me well!
mEKANIK
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Dec 16, 2004 16:46:21 GMT
Son, get your head out of your a**.
Not only was Rob not methodical, he spent two minutes on google. No one demands facts until you make unsubstantiated claims on the basis that you have the facts to support them.
I'm not going to treat you with kid gloves. For too long people have been tip toeing round you.
You use flowery language and don't use it well. Remember that there are adults on this forum and to us your poor command of english is glaringly obvious. More than that though, you repeatedly make unsupported claims and try to weasel out of them afterwards.
I've read well-written, considered and reasonable responses from other board members, listing in detail the shortcomings of your posts - yet you ignore them. You'll probably ignore this, but I know you'll read it. Don't think you've left anyone thinking you're anything more than run-of-the-mill.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 16, 2004 17:31:30 GMT
I don’t have the time to Methodically search out and refine various quotes, facts and figures. So why do you keep promising us you'll do so? Are these the words of the member who on numerous occasions has accused Rob and myself of being "idiot liberals"? Why's it okay for you to go round chucking short-tempered abuse at people who disagree with you, yet it's not okay for the rest of us merely to point out when you're clearly wrong about something and are making up information that you have never had any basis to offer? We don't hound you for facts either, we just insist you back up the claims you make when they're obscure and bizarre. Indeed I find this complaint the most obnoxious of the lot, as you once again seem to be implying that we have to accept everything you say without question, that we have no right to doubt what you tell us, and that your opinions are not open to dispute. Throwing a tantrum like this suggests you're sulking that we won't just treat you as a superior as of right, but instead insist you prove yourself and your words. And the fact that you can't prove them shows that you're not superior after all, and that undermines your ego. Maybe that's why you're leaving? Bottom line, Oliver, is you keep painting yourself as someone special, formidable, and unusually enlightened. In other words, someone a cut above most other people. When you say things like that, you've got to back it up, cos otherwise you're gonna make yourself look silly, and it encourages those others, whom you have effectively insulted by implying that you're superior, to say so and in very emphatic terms. It's not the fact that you have so little information, but the fact that you claim so many things without any basis. You appear to say whatever supports what you want to believe, and you make so many sweeping statements without doing any research at all - and then even fail to do the promised research after the event as well. As the Yanks say, "If ya gonna talk da talk, ya gotta walk da walk." You talk a great fight, Oliver, but you walk like Douglas Bader.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 16, 2004 18:03:41 GMT
Frankly, Oliver, if you DO decide to leave then I for one won't be missing you. Your posts are nothing but ill-informed guesswork, and it insults me and the others to have to trawl through the biased, opinionated conjecture you seem to believe constitutes an argument.
Personally, I think this is just another attempt to avoid having to admit you were making it up as you went along. If you do come scurrying back, don't expect even the level of courtesy I'm extending with this unless you buck your ideas up and start acting your age. It doesn't take any time at all to do basic research on a topic, certainly less than you spend writing uninformed opinions and promising you'll dig up some facts for us. The sheer insult of us going to that effort only for you to dismiss any of our findings as incompatible with the day-dream you live in is exasperating enough, but for you to drag the process out by claiming you can back up your lies when you can't is unbearable.
No-one else on these forums is as uninformed as you, and yet you are the one who makes all the sweeping statements. If you're going to tell us how things are in the world (as your posts all seem to do) then you should probably start by finding some information. Don't comment on issues you haven't the slightest idea about, as it only makes you look stupid and really aggravates everyone who knows what they're talking about.
|
|