Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

zoara <me18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > zoara <me18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Tim Streater <timstreater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  me18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (zoara) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > > > > And I don't see how anyone could dislike acquiring useful
> > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Plenty of people are happy just going down the pub and
drinking
> > > > > > themselves silly every night. They have no interest in
acquiring
> > > > > > knowledge, and that's just an extreme example to make a point.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Certainly not what we might call useful knowledge anyway.
> > > > > Knowledge about Big Brothers contestants, WAGs, and other
> > > > > non-entities who infest hello and OK, yes.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see what examples of `no interest in...' have to do with
> > > > `disliking...'.
> > > 
> > > I could have written it as:
> > > 
> > > Plenty of people are happy just going down the pub and drinking
> > > themselves silly every night. They dislike acquiring knowledge
("That's
> > > ****ing boring mate, shut up and drink"), and that's just an extreme
> > > example to make a point.
> > 
> > No, it's a made-up example to make a point.
> 
> So the people who have said that sort of thing to me are made up too?

Why should I believe any of your claims?

I have no idea if anyone's ever made any such remark to you - but a
comment made by one hopeless alcoholic in one pub in response to one
comment by one person (all you re****ted) has no bearing on wider
society.

I'd say that there are a trivial number of people in the country who
drink themselves silly every night, and that sort of person probably has
given up on learning anything - but what else can one expect from a
hopeless drunk?

I expect you'd find that the average smackhead has little interest in
learning too.  What of it?  The activities of the drug-addled such as
the smackheads and those who drink themselves silly every night have
little to do with the general population.

The average soldier is very interested in learning - and they do a lot
of getting pissed (but they're rarely alcoholics).  Of course, very few
`other ranks' have much eagerness for engaging in /academic/ learning.
But that's not the same thing, is it?

And the fact that someone has dismissed a particular isolated fact as
boring doesn't mean they're not interested in learning, either: you can
be uninterested in `school type learning' while being deadly keen on
learning.  Take the average good footballer: he learns a lot about
football, about applied mathematics, and all sorts to get good at what
he does.  Take anyone who's any good at what they do: they're dead keen
on learning, or they never would have learnt how to be good at what they
do.

Being keen on learning is something that all successful people have as
part of their makeup.  Some people prefer to limit the learning that
they do to particular areas of knowledge and particular methods of
learning - so what?

Just because you reject book or school-style learning doesn't mean
you've no interest in learning.

Anyway:

You've taken what you *allege* to be a quotation, which you admit is of
no statistical significance - taken it out of context and tried to use
it to make an irrelevant point in an invalid fa****on on a topic
unrelated to the point I'd just made.

Of course you knew all that - you're just being dishonest for the sake
of winding me up.

So I'm responding with a post that is intended to wind you up.

Do you begin to understand me yet?

> Presumably I imagined working on a factory floor during university
> holidays with people who said exactly that.

<puzzled>  The fact that you claim to have heard a statistically trivial
number of individuals make a comment like that means nothing at all -
and has even less to do with the point I made.

My point is that not having an interest in something is not the same as
disliking something.

> I was once ridiculed for
> reading a book.

So what?

My point is that not having an interest in something is not the same as
disliking something.

I once did quantum mechanics revision from a book while working in a
factory and wasn't ridiculed - in fact, some people were impressed (I
told 'em not to be).

So what?

My point is that not having an interest in something is not the same as
disliking something.

Your witterings have nothing whatever to do with that.

How about writing something that has a bearing on my point, instead of
coming up with a bit of unrelated bollocks?

My point is that not having an interest in something is not the same as
disliking something.

> > > But anyway, Tim's got a point and I was wrong. People *do* like
> > > acquiring knowledge; it's just that different people have different
> > > measures of what's useful knowledge. You consider history to be
useful;
> > > many people don't.
> > 
> > The reason I consider history to be useful knowledge is for the same
> > reason that everyone else with any education considers it to be useful
> > knowledge.
> 
> Ah, you're qualifying your statements now.

Not at all: I'm explaining myself to someone who is hard of thinking,
that is: you.

> > You talk as if my opinion on this matter were some kind of deviation
> > from the norm: it's not, it's the majority opinion amongst educated
> > people.
> 
> I never said it wasn't.

I explained so above, did I not?

I explained that you implied it was the case, not that you stated so
explicity.

Do try to keep up, laddie.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
                            http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking