2000 AD Online Forum

Is anyone taking this seriously?

Just filled in mine.

I'm Guybrush Threepwood and I'm a Mighty Pirate

As someone who regularly uses Ireland's earliest surviving Census originals (1901 and 1911) for work, and in a former life used the most recent summary information for mapping commuting patterns, I'd say 'yes' - it's an absolutely invaluable project, both for future historical research and current planning purposes.  And I speak as someone who generally hates filling out surveys or providing organisations with my data.

At least future historians will learn from the 2011 census that there was an awful lot of silly twats around back then who still thought it was the height of high wit to put their religion down as 'Jedi'.

I filled mine in with very tiny handwriting.

Yes, of course I take the Census seriously, it's used by Government to allocate funds based on population.  People who don't fill it in, or deliberately cock it up, will probably be amongst the first to complain when they lose a service.

I do think though that some of the questions are ridiculous but that's all part of the fun.

It's nice to see that the English have been identified, at long last in the Census, as having a national identity.  Now all we need is a Parliament so we can be up there alongside our Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish brothers and sisters!

Quote from: GordonR on 17 March, 2011, 09:48:22 AM
At least future historians will learn from the 2011 census that there was an awful lot of silly twats around back then who still thought it was the height of high wit to put their religion down as 'Jedi'.

ah the outsider's outsider...


not the height of wit just some harmless fun for us kiddies

You tell 'im Proudhuff  :D

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I feel like such a square now for filling mine in properly.

Jedi for me. In 50 years time it will probably be a serious religion.




V

I'm regretting putting Jedi - I should've put Sith.

Quote from: Old Tankie on 17 March, 2011, 01:12:50 PM
Yes, of course I take the Census seriously, it's used by Government to allocate funds based on population.  People who don't fill it in, or deliberately cock it up, will probably be amongst the first to complain when they lose a service.

This ^

Quote from: TordelBack on 17 March, 2011, 09:02:12 AM
As someone who regularly uses Ireland's earliest surviving Census originals (1901 and 1911) for work, and in a former life used the most recent summary information for mapping commuting patterns, I'd say 'yes' - it's an absolutely invaluable project, both for future historical research and current planning purposes.

And this ^

Quote from: GordonR on 17 March, 2011, 09:48:22 AM
At least future historians will learn from the 2011 census that there was an awful lot of silly twats around back then who still thought it was the height of high wit to put their religion down as 'Jedi'.

And this too! ^


When I was a sociologist by occupation rather than just by training, I was absolutely disgusted when a colleague of mine wrote 'Jedi' as her religion, when I knew damn well she was nothing of the kind (she had watched Star Wars - does that count?). I felt that as a sociologist (admittedly one whose first degree was English and Classics), she ought to recognize the value of the census to her own profession. She's still working as a social scientist and I'm not, so I suppose the joke's on me.

it does seem daft to me ,i mean, the various people who arent even here legally arent exactly going to get one or indeed fill it out are they? so it hardly gives an accurate representation of the masses...my mum in law did hers last week and already posted it!

Being Northern Irish, I regard the Census as just another sectarian headcount. I'm probably wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it.

Quote from: pops1983 on 17 March, 2011, 10:32:53 PM
Being Northern Irish, I regard the Census as just another sectarian headcount. I'm probably wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it.

go down south for the day on the 27th,the bastards cant touch you then. ;)

Quote from: mogzilla on 17 March, 2011, 10:34:10 PM

Quote from: pops1983 on 17 March, 2011, 10:32:53 PM
Being Northern Irish, I regard the Census as just another sectarian headcount. I'm probably wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it.

go down south for the day on the 27th,the bastards cant touch you then. ;)

Aye, but the priests will

A letter in the Times Higher today pointed out that parts of the census questionnaire are poorly worded, to wit:

QuoteIndividuals are asked to indicate whether they have a higher degree, for example, an MA, PhD or PGCE. The last is obviously an error. The first has ambiguity in Scotland, where it represents a first degree for the ancient universities, and in Oxford, where it is an academic bonus gained through payment, not study.
- Ian McNay, Professor emeritus, higher education and management, University of Greenwich

On the one hand I think 'Ha! Serves them right.' On the other hand, but still as a former government social research employee with an axe to grind, I am irked by the knowledge that this example of poor questionnaire design may well be attributable to an organizational preference for mathematical and statistical skills, and writing formulae in particular, over social science skills including questionnaire design. Indeed, it would appear that people I worked with didn't regard questionnaire design to be a specialist skill at all but thought just anyone could do it (and just anyone did have a go), whereas they couldn't see the value of any graduate researcher who hadn't learnt how to write formulae, and nor were they willing to provide the training. When I left their employ they were thinking of changing their recruitment process to exclude qualitative researchers. If they're sensible they'll drop that idea and try to hire a few more to broaden the skills base of their organization.

I was gonna give them my basic details for headcount purposes but I kept thinking back to their petty threats and ripped it up instead. I could do time for murder without answering that many questions.

I can fully accept getting annoyed by bad survey design, it used to drive me mad when I was doing statistical analysis on Census results, and it was obvious that just one alternate word in some questions would eliminate acres of ambiguity.  I can also just about accept the 'Jedi' entry as representing a Monster Raving Loony Party-type two-fingers attitude to invasive systems of control, which I can see may be something commendable about the British character (although if you really do wish to indicate that you have no religious faith, or wish to indicate that you do not feel that that question is anyone's business but your own, I'd recommend saying that).  

What I can't understand is not filling out the form at all.  Leaving aside the value to the present allocation of resources (rejection of which is, i suppose, a political choice), it's part of a portrait of your whole society, that your descendants will be able to look at and specifically see your form, and place it in the context of all the other forms - and then go back to the previous one, and forward to the next one, and see how you as an individual moved through a vanished world.  There's nothing like it - I've read W.B. Yeats' census entry in his own hand, I've read my great grandmother's, I've read the entries for inner city tenements that you can match to the address on the O.S. map to see 50 people sharing one outside toilet and living off 5 wages.  Absenting yourself from the historical record like that is... well, short-sighted.

My missus filled it in but was asking me the questions. When it got to the religion part I said to put atheist, and she asked why I didn't just put none, and what the difference is. I honestly couldn't think of an answer and felt very stupid. Then she asked the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and I felt even stupider.

Edit: I obviously know the difference now, but I didn't have google to hand. We put 'none' on the form in the end.

The trouble with the religion part of the census is that you have three options if your beliefs aren't among those stated: you can ignore it, tick 'none' or write your answer in. The first two can be interpreted as apathy; which with further be interpreted as 'someone who hasnt yet seen the light, or someone who isnt going to care about cultural policy based upin religion, therefore we can continue pushing the idea that religion is serious and should be treated with repect'.
The empty box allows me to write 'atheist' (definitely not 'agnostic' or 'none'), but demeans that absolute lack of religious conviction by making it of exactly the same significance as someone writing 'jedi' or 'satanist' (an act that i do support, by the way).
The question should not be optional, and 'atheist' should be an option.

SBT

The entire census should be optional.

Making it an offence to not fill it in is what bugs me - where's the freedom in that? If I wrote to David Cameron asking him these questions for my own personal research, would he answer me? Like balls he would. It's nothing more than keeping a check on the cattle.

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 18 March, 2011, 11:53:48 AM
The empty box allows me to write 'atheist' (definitely not 'agnostic' or 'none'), but demeans that absolute lack of religious conviction by making it of exactly the same significance as someone writing 'jedi' or 'satanist' (an act that i do support, by the way).

As regards the computer tally and present analyses, you're right - the question is clearly designed to record either your affiliation to a listed organised religion, or none, rather than your personal conviction.  As regards the historical record, your written preference will be recorded and accorded its appropriate weight.

But...

QuoteThe question should not be optional, and 'atheist' should be an option.

You're absolutely right.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 12:00:56 PM
It's nothing more than keeping a check on the cattle.

Unless you're taking your political views to a Year Zero extreme, it really isn't.  

If I wrote to David Cameron asking him these questions for my own personal research, would he answer me? Like balls he would.

David Cameron is being asked those questions, and you will have an opportunity to analyse the anonymised data produced for your research, and in a hundred years time you can read his answers, just as he'll be able to read yours.

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 12:05:35 PM
you will have an opportunity to analyse the anonymised data produced for your research, and in a hundred years time you can read his answers, just as he'll be able to read yours.

You say that like you sound sarcastic, but haven't you seen Futurama? Heads kept alive in jars, that's all I'm saying.

P.S. - David Cameron doesn't want your census returns; he'd rather have the money. It's the Office for National Statistics that does want them. For the purpose of producing statistics (ooh, sinister!).

;)

Lockheed Martin, the notorious US arms manufacturer, was awarded the £150m contract to run the census on behalf of the Office for National Statistics. 

Lockheed Martin provided private contract interrogators to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.  They are responsible for Trident missiles for both the US and the UK nuclear weapons systems, and are one of three contractors which run the nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston.  80% of their work is done for the US defence department: they assist more than two dozen American government agencies and are involved in surveillance and data processing for the CIA and FBI. 

Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war? Well, I can get fined up to £1,000. No matter how useful the census will be to present or future generations (assuming there will be any future generations after companies like Lockheed Martin get through with us), I don't agree with this compulsory element. Why don't they pay everyone who agrees to take part a tenner instead?

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 12:48:08 PM
Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war?

That's a different matter to dismissing it as 'checking on the cattle', and I'm inclined to agree with you on that one - the same criminals are running the Irish census.  The way to move forward on that one is to continue to protest a government procurement process that believes in the complete innocence of subsidiary companies from their owners' crimes (as our government does), or just point-blank doesn't care about it (yours).  It doesn't invalidate the census project as a whole.

Until we get a choice, we are cattle. Or chattel.

Participating in any society automatically restricts choice.  Currently society holds that that the wider benefits of compulsory completion of the census outweighs your individual objections.  But as you point out, you still have a choice, albeit Hobson's.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 12:48:08 PM
Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war?

Did you participate in the 2001 census? Lockheed Martin won the contract to provide the data capture software for that one as well, so they probably had the edge in terms of track record of success when bidding for the 2011 contract.

QuoteWhy don't they pay everyone who agrees to take part a tenner instead?

That would be giving us back our own money, and would increase to cost of the census by about £300,000,000.

QuoteQuote
The question should not be optional, and 'atheist' should be an option.


You're absolutely right.

But the 'none' box deals with this. Being an atheist is not a religion, so by definition you have 'none'. Unless I'm doing it wrong.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 March, 2011, 02:04:49 PM
But the 'none' box deals with this. Being an atheist is not a religion, so by definition you have 'none'. Unless I'm doing it wrong.

I think there is a distinction, although not one that would bother me personally - you're not part of one of the list of organised religions, but you assert your atheism as a firm position of belief.  It's interesting to speculate on Dawkin's answer to that question, as he stops short of claiming absolute certainty of the non-existence of God(s).

Quite. [in answer to Richmond's comment, above]

From a policy point of view it doesn't matter much whether people put 'none' or that their religion is 'other: atheist.' Questions about state funding for faith schools, etc, are political questions, and are not decided by vague measures of membership of religions via the census. When drafting a question like this one you have to consider whether it is more valuable to know how prevalent atheism is among the population than to know what proportion of the population are not practicing members of a religion. Since the question doesn't actually ask what anybody's religious beliefs are - it doesn't ask if you believe in God or the supernatural - I presume whoever originated the question didn't have any reason for distinguishing atheists from people who aren't affiliated to any religion. It's religious affiliation, not belief, that is the object this question is intended to illuminate.

Quote from: House of Usher on 18 March, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
Did you participate in the 2001 census? Lockheed Martin won the contract to provide the data capture software for that one as well, so they probably had the edge in terms of track record of success when bidding for the 2011 contract.

In 2001 I was a sheep. I believed everything the TV told me and did exactly what I was told by "the authorities." I have since learned a few things that make me regret my past compliant, Elites' know what's best for me mentality.

Quote from: House of Usher on 18 March, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
That would be giving us back our own money, and would increase to cost of the census by about £300,000,000.

So what? The bank bailout cost over £850bn.

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 01:23:57 PM
Participating in any society automatically restricts choice.  Currently society holds that that the wider benefits of compulsory completion of the census outweighs your individual objections.  But as you point out, you still have a choice, albeit Hobson's.

I agree that belonging to any society does restrict choice, it's the growing extent of that restriction that worries me.

The mandatory census is indicative of that lack of choice, that lack of freedom. This is not to say that I hate the society that I am part of - far from it. As much as I may hate being made to do things that I disagree with, and see others being made to do the same or similar things, I also love the fact that people like you and I can debate it openly, freely and with no fear of sanction or punishment.

I think it is my duty as a member of this society I so much enjoy being a part of and feel great pride in to point out the things about it that must be improved upon. I know that my views annoy some people, but I make no apologies for that. Some people's views annoy me, but I demand no apology from them, either. The only thing I expect from everyone is that they do their own little bit to make our society as good as it can be by doing anything from running for prime minister to picking up a discarded bottle off the street to complaining about the census.

Our society has not reached any kind of final stage yet and continues to evolve day by day, even hour by hour sometimes. By airing my views on the census and government and money and corporations and whatnot, I feel that I am doing my bit to ask you - in which direction would you like our society to evolve? Do you want more freedoms, or fewer freedoms? Secrecy or truth? Law or justice? Affluence or poverty? All these things are in our hands and our hands alone. We are the power in this world, not governments or banks or corporations - they only rule us for as long as we allow them to.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 02:34:37 PM
I know that my views annoy some people, but I make no apologies for that.

And nor should you, your ideas are never anything less than thought-provoking, even when they infuriate!

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 02:34:37 PM
I agree that belonging to any society does restrict choice, it's the growing extent of that restriction that worries me.

The mandatory census is indicative of that lack of choice, that lack of freedom.

Mandatory completion of the census form isn't a new thing though, is it? It's not David Cameron, Tony Blair or the E.U. that made it compulsory.

Just because something is old or an established tradition, that doesn't make it right.

And thanks, Tordels, that's very kind of you to say  :)

It doesn't make it wrong, either!

a voluntary census would be meaningless. The current method is likley to be phased out very soon anyway- we are monitored and recorded in so many other ways, that data-farming techniques will soon allow constant real-time measuring of the population without the need to ask for civic cooperation.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark link=topic=32291.msg592117#msg592117In 2001 I was a sheep. I believed everything the TV told me and did exactly what I was told by "the authorities." I have since learned a few things that make me regret my past compliant, Elites' know what's best for me mentality.

This isn't meant to be a personal attack Sharky - not by a long chalk - but this is what turns me off a lot of campainers for truth, for want of a better word.It always seems to be people who bumbled along for years without a thought for what was going on beyond their own lives, who have an epiphany of some sort then decide that everyone else is stupid or at least as uncritical as they were before the scales fell from their eyes. Maybe they're not. See also: born again Christians. I feel that some corners of the 'truth' peeps as just replacing 'God' with 'conspiracy'.

And getting worked up about the census is daft I reckon - you may get fined if you don't fill it in, but if you ask me (which you admittedly didn't!), if I didn't want to fill it in, I just wouldn't. And fuck the 'Elite' - naming them that only gives 'em credence.

I'll be filling in my census form, btw and I don't consider myself no bovine or ovine. Only sheep need a leader  ;)

M.

Quote from: Mikey on 18 March, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
...I don't consider myself no bovine or ovine.

Independent as a hog on ice it is, so.

Obey the Law and fill this form out, or face the wrath of your government!

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 03:52:35 PM

Quote from: Mikey on 18 March, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
...I don't consider myself no bovine or ovine.

Independent as a hog on ice it is, so.

He's a big man down there at the slaughterhouse is our Mikey.

Quote from: Mikey on 18 March, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
This isn't meant to be a personal attack Sharky - not by a long chalk - but this is what turns me off a lot of campainers for truth, for want of a better word.It always seems to be people who bumbled along for years without a thought for what was going on beyond their own lives, who have an epiphany of some sort then decide that everyone else is stupid or at least as uncritical as they were before the scales fell from their eyes. Maybe they're not. See also: born again Christians. I feel that some corners of the 'truth' peeps as just replacing 'God' with 'conspiracy'.

And getting worked up about the census is daft I reckon - you may get fined if you don't fill it in, but if you ask me (which you admittedly didn't!), if I didn't want to fill it in, I just wouldn't. And fuck the 'Elite' - naming them that only gives 'em credence.

I'll be filling in my census form, btw and I don't consider myself no bovine or ovine. Only sheep need a leader  ;)

M.

I completely understand, Mikey - and I really don't think that anyone who doesn't see the world as I do is stupid or otherwise defective. (I have noticed, thought not so much on this board, that people do not seem willing to afford me the same respect.)

I did have an epiphany, though (learning about WTC7 started it), and from then on I saw the world around me in a completely different way. I hope that I am wrong, I really do, because the idea that some people see the rest of us as sheep to be sheared really doesn't sit well with my belief that all human beings are fundamentally decent and honourable (albeit often in their own ways). Perhaps someone else here could look at WTC7 and put my mind at rest, convince me I'm reading too much into it. I really wish somebody could.

Unfortunately, there are some things that you just can't un-see.

As to God, well, that's a different thing altogether and I think I look nuts enough as it is without pursuing that particular topic!

The census doesn't really annoy me, to be honest, it's just irritating - like when you get those market survey people calling at your door or ringing you up. At least with those buggers you can tell them to sod off without fear of getting fined.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:23:19 PM
I completely understand, Mikey - and I really don't think that anyone who doesn't see the world as I do is stupid or otherwise defective.

Yeah, I know that TLS. It just reminded me of why I walked away from the conspiracy 'community' a long time ago. A lot of it is misguided bollocks spouted by people who are looking for a leader as much as the people they claim to be above - some seem to expect to be given freedom rather than having to take it for themselves. Anyway, I'm dragging this way off...

QuoteAs to God, well, that's a different thing altogether ...

...OR IS IT?!  :D

And who's c-c-calling me a p-p-porcine?!

M.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:23:19 PM
The census doesn't really annoy me, to be honest, it's just irritating - like when you get those market survey people calling at your door or ringing you up. At least with those buggers you can tell them to sod off without fear of getting fined.

I feel differently about the census to how I feel about market research cold callers. As a resident of the UK I feel a sense of ownership of it and the data that's produced from it. I see it as an unfortunate thing that that data has been threatened increasingly with incompleteness and inaccuracy since the census became a focus for protest against the poll tax, and, subsequently, government in general. The damage done to the census by the poll tax is the legacy of the Tories' 1980s experiments in tyranny.

I don't think you're dragging it way off at all, Mikey - I think you're bob on the money.

It was Mother Teresa who said, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person," and that's just what I think, too. We don' need no steenkin' leeders...

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:23:19 PM
Perhaps someone else here could look at WTC7 and put my mind at rest, convince me I'm reading too much into it. I really wish somebody could.

I just googled "WTC7 debunked" and found dozens of links giving loads of scientific evidence that is over my head but suggests that there was nothing unexplained or inconsistent. It's possible to find a website that supports any point of view, and anything can be claimed on the internet. I'm not a structural engineer and I don't have direct access to the physical evidence, and nither do you. You have chosen to believe thee "truth" (god how I loath that name) organisations, in the same way as people chose to believe a religion. This doesn't make you enlightened, just a different colour of sheep. Untila conspiracist can come up with some hard proof, I'll still go with the more plausible solution, ie what I saw on telly really happened. Occam rules!

But we're going off topic (I resisted getting in to this argument on the political thread but when it's used as anexcuse not to fill in the census, I think you're going too far!)

Agreed. Truce.

Quote from: House of Usher on 18 March, 2011, 04:41:11 PM
The damage done to the census by the poll tax is the legacy of the Tories' 1980s experiments in tyranny.

At least you can't accuse the current Tories of not learning from their previous research.

Ah, the census. Is there still a certain date you have to do it on? I seem to remember that from the last one or the one before when I had a load of mates round or something, so that was confusing. 3 ago I distinctly remember being on holiday in the West Caledonian Wastes. I've even got a photo of me, my Dad and his mate filling out the census. I'm pretty sure I've got a 2000ad badge on (McMahon Dredd, the one from prog whatever it was), the same one that I've got on in a school photo :D There's a box of Stackers sitting on the table which I pine for these days. Pringles are shit, life just ain't what it was  :'(

I knew a bloke during the poll tax whose inspired bit of non violent direct action was to request and fill out a change of addess form every time he spent a night away from home, and another one when he came home. The tax was abolished long before the bureacracy caught up with his paperwork!

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 March, 2011, 04:04:25 PM

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 03:52:35 PM

Quote from: Mikey on 18 March, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
...I don't consider myself no bovine or ovine.

Independent as a hog on ice it is, so.

He's a big man down there at the slaughterhouse is our Mikey.

we must find out where the money is, find it now before he loses his mind

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 08:14:53 AMWhat I can't understand is not filling out the form at all.  Leaving aside the value to the present allocation of resources (rejection of which is, i suppose, a political choice), it's part of a portrait of your whole society, that your descendants will be able to look at and specifically see your form, and place it in the context of all the other forms - and then go back to the previous one, and forward to the next one, and see how you as an individual moved through a vanished world.  There's nothing like it - I've read W.B. Yeats' census entry in his own hand, I've read my great grandmother's, I've read the entries for inner city tenements that you can match to the address on the O.S. map to see 50 people sharing one outside toilet and living off 5 wages.  Absenting yourself from the historical record like that is... well, short-sighted.

Actually, I'm in agreement there. I'm a huge sci-fi nut like most other geeks on here, but I probably find simple history books on my home city most inspiring. Gawping at the photographs, it's like I come to some odd child-like realisation that actual real people did live in the past.

My problem was less with the amount of information requested, but rather the presumption that they owned it somehow. It's just the principle of the thing. Or a small protest if you want to see it that way.

If others want to fill it in then fine. It's completely their choice. Sort of.  :P

My position on the census, which you might infer from one of my earlier comments, is that we all own it.

There's a section on the one for Norn Iron regarding languages. One of the options is for understanding/speaking/reading "Ulster-Scots".

Now, I'll try not to chew the desk here, but this really gets on my wick, so it does. I'll be honest here - my family, on my mother's side anyway, spoke with the particular dialect they're referring to. I myself once spoke with 'the hamley tongue' and when I found out why a lot of country folks talked in such a way, it was referred to as 'Scots-Irish', until it was politicised as a reaction to funding for the Irish language movement.

The issue I have is that I believe there's a presumption there that if you say you understand the dialect you're a prod - which is kinda ballicks as the buckin dialect remains in some places regardless of religion. It's been co opted by Unionism, which annoys me because I was interested in it long before these arseholes give a shit, so if I express this interest or indeed slip into the patois of my youth, I know some people immediately think I jumped on the bandwagon and have a certain political stance. Also, many of the tossers into this as a political tool never spoke like that and were the middle class snobs who discouraged it in schools and did their best not to have an accent. The can away an shite, hoors melt.

Anyone on the mainland have such shite to deal with on their form?

M.

The Guardian's Readers' Editor once apologised for using the phrase 'the mainland' in that way after There Were Letters. I remember distinctly the wording of the ending of the apology: "we do not do that," i.e. the writer who penned the article was ignorant of The Guardian policy on the matter.

Quote from: Mikey on 19 March, 2011, 10:22:14 AMit was politicised as a reaction to funding for the Irish language movement.

You've been hanging out with Fenians too much, Mikey!
But yeah, the Ulster-Scots thing is now beyond a joke, at this stage bordering on Stalinist historical revisionism from some quarters.  The amount of flim-flam and outright lies to try and convince the word "crack" actually exists as part of a centuries-old lexicon ("craic") rather than simply being a bit of bastardised English is almost frightening - these fuckers run our country and are spending money on that shit while my local hospital is quickly becoming little more than a glorified car park.

QuoteAnyone on the mainland have such shite to deal with on their form?

There's a box for Scots Gaelic, which is fair enough, but also one for 'Scots', which as far as I know, if for people who speak like Middenface McNulty.

Quote from: House of Usher on 19 March, 2011, 12:09:44 PM
The Guardian's Readers' Editor once apologised for using the phrase 'the mainland' in that way after There Were Letters.

Yeah, it's in the Guardian Style guide so the journalist really shouldn't have used it, but for me it's just a geographical description - we're on the periphery wether some like it or not!

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 March, 2011, 02:42:00 PM
also one for 'Scots', which as far as I know, if for people who speak like Middenface McNulty.

That's the leid, is it?

Quote from: Professah Byah on 19 March, 2011, 02:26:22 PM
You've been hanging out with Fenians too much, Mikey!
But yeah, the Ulster-Scots thing is now beyond a joke, at this stage bordering on Stalinist historical revisionism from some quarters.  The amount of flim-flam and outright lies to try and convince the word "crack" actually exists as part of a centuries-old lexicon ("craic") rather than simply being a bit of bastardised English is almost frightening - these fuckers run our country and are spending money on that shit while my local hospital is quickly becoming little more than a glorified car park.

Heh! That's what they'd no doubt say, the wee nyerps. And you're right - too much money wasted on crap like this, like the translation of Hansard when you have the whole country's pipes fuckin burstin!

Another crap thing is that it takes away from the fact it's an interesting lingual atavism in many repects -  it's a mix of Irish, (Old) English and Scots. I don't have a problem with it being promoted or clebrated as such, just that the focus isn't on the interesting historical basis of it and that money's wasted on act the mads from the likes of the Lagan Valley - a hot bed of thick dialects it isn't. Winds me right up.

M.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:42:20 PMIt was Mother Teresa who said, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person," and that's just what I think, too. We don' need no steenkin' leeders...

Mother Teresa?- that aul wench who, with the church, gained from the suffering of others. Fak her, the hipocrite- I thought you heralded truth Mr. Shark?

She spoke very highly of you.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 19 March, 2011, 03:00:31 PM

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:42:20 PMIt was Mother Teresa who said, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person," and that's just what I think, too. We don' need no steenkin' leeders...

Mother Teresa?- that aul wench who, with the church, gained from the suffering of others. Fak her, the hipocrite- I thought you heralded truth Mr. Shark?

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Mother Teresa.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 March, 2011, 03:27:16 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 19 March, 2011, 03:00:31 PM

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 March, 2011, 04:42:20 PMIt was Mother Teresa who said, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person," and that's just what I think, too. We don' need no steenkin' leeders...

Mother Teresa?- that aul wench who, with the church, gained from the suffering of others. Fak her, the hipocrite- I thought you heralded truth Mr. Shark?

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Mother Teresa.

Ah yes, I forgot that only "good" people can say worthy things and that every word falling from the mouths of "bad" people must be ignored.

Please forgive my stupidity.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 03:45:22 PMAh yes, I forgot that only "good" people can say worthy things and that every word falling from the mouths of "bad" people must be ignored.

Please forgive my stupidity.

Well you didn't have to quote Mother Teresa to make your point, sorry, I just hate cherry picking, a pet peeve.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 March, 2011, 03:27:16 PM

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Mother Teresa.

Also, how many of you watched Red Nose Day last night? Watching as the BBC gloried in the noble suffering of the starving? How many of you will watch Children in Need? Glorious suffering indeed!

Not a fan, charity can often prolong suffering as root causes generally go unaddressed or ignored.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 03:58:39 PM

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 March, 2011, 03:27:16 PM

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Mother Teresa.

Also, how many of you watched Red Nose Day last night? Watching as the BBC gloried in the noble suffering of the starving? How many of you will watch Children in Need? Glorious suffering indeed!

I didn't.
Mother Teresa was a repulsive hypocrite. She actively prevented people from rising from misery. To ignore this is akin to saying "Yeah, but Hitler loved his dog."

So, because Mother Teresa was a repulsive hypocrite who believed that abortion was "the greatest destroyer of peace," that means she was also wrong about not waiting for leaders to do stuff for us but to do stuff for ourselves instead?

Sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
So, because Mother Teresa was a repulsive hypocrite who believed that abortion was "the greatest destroyer of peace," that means she was also wrong about not waiting for leaders to do stuff for us but to do stuff for ourselves instead?

Sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

So, what are you saying?

I post a quote to make a point about leaders and then it's like I have to defend the character of the person who made the quote. If I'd posted the quote  without attribution, would that have been better?

I still don't get it, sorry.

As Mr Soap said:

QuoteWell you didn't have to quote Mother Teresa to make your point, sorry, I just hate cherry picking, a pet peeve.

Here's an example.

QuoteI believe in one thing only, the power of human will.

Oh, that's good, isn't it? I could agree with that. I wonder who said it..? Let's see... Oh. Stalin.

He also said "I trust no one, not even myself."

So what?

OK, I'm sensing a certain cooling of the atmosphere here.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone or be deliberately annoying. I know that a lot of the people who post here have been to university and whatnot and know a great deal more about a great many things than I do. (I barely even finished high school and couldn't wait to be shot of the place. I'm not academically minded at all and find research to be tedious and quite often boring - I only generally do it for writing purposes anyway, because I feel that for a writer a certain amount of research is vital.)

I can't argue with Joe's point about cherry-picking being his pet peeve because to do so would, in my opinion, be an attack on his personality. Pet peeves are part of who we are, I just have to accept that and move on. I respect each and every person on these forums and do not wish to make any personal attacks or criticisms about anyone. I hope to Grud you'll never see me say anything like "well, if you think that you're just a ******."

Cherry-picking is not one of my pet peeves - if somebody said something I agree with in a clear and succinct way, in a better way than I could, then I'll use it. If Hitler had said it better, I might even have used his words.

I don't know if you went to university or not, Rich, so I don't know if you've been trained to some higher academic level than I have (although I strongly suspect you have). Perhaps there is some academic rule about vetting people before you use their quotations that I am not aware of - I wouldn't be surprised.

All I can say is that, angel or demon, Mother Teresa said something about leadership that I happen to wholeheartedly agree with and I honestly don't understand why using her words should be so upsetting. The bitch is dead now anyway, so what difference does it make?

Oh, and I just found out that Stalin also said "The writer is the engineer of the human soul," which I think is very cool!

The point I am trying to make is that no matter how 'clever' a thing someone once said, it is all but impossible to not be coloured in your opinion by knowledge of that person's past actions.

Can we at least agree Mother Teresa was hot when she was younger?

I never learned a damn thing about Mother Teresa from going to university, but I learnt plenty about her from watching documentaries about her on TV and reading what Christopher Hitchens had to say about her. She was a hypocrite and a shit, and cozied up to the rich and powerful and dictators who oppressed their people.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 05:44:12 PM
Oh, and I just found out that Stalin also said "The writer is the engineer of the human soul," which I think is very cool!

Unless he was referring to the uses of propaganda (I don't know), in which case it's an ignoble and insidious sentiment.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 March, 2011, 06:09:17 PM
The point I am trying to make is that no matter how 'clever' a thing someone once said, it is all but impossible to not be coloured in your opinion by knowledge of that person's past actions.

Ah,now I understand. However, isn't that a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Quote from: House of Usher on 19 March, 2011, 06:18:20 PM
She was a hypocrite and a shit, and cozied up to the rich and powerful and dictators who oppressed their people.

The same could be said about Winston Churchill (amongst other).

Quote from: Professah Byah on 19 March, 2011, 06:13:37 PM
Can we at least agree Mother Teresa was hot when she was younger?

I'd buy that for a dollar!

According to http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=58&id=16387

Stalin told the writers under his power that they should write about how life should be and not how life was. He said, "The writer is the engineer of the human soul," and he wanted to make sure he had control of that engineering operation. (Just like Tharg, then!)

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 06:25:09 PM
The same could be said about Winston Churchill (amongst other).

But without Churchill we'd (possibly) all be speaking German, those of us whose ancestors weren't exterminated outright.  Without Mother Teresa the poor and voiceless would be... pretty much where they are right now.  You're allowed to be an utter shit and still be accorded respect when you've contributed more than your share.

Not so when you're just a parasitic advocate of some Iron Age cult.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 19 March, 2011, 05:44:12 PMCherry-picking is not one of my pet peeves - if somebody said something I agree with in a clear and succinct way, in a better way than I could, then I'll use it. If Hitler had said it better, I might even have used his words.

Don't be surprised if some people take-you-up-wrong.

How I see it:

Hitler coined the phrase 'the Big Lie', a rather profound concept with a strong element of truth: 'People will believe a big lie more than a small one'. Now in the context of Hitler and his life/work, repeating this phrase/concept in a discussion, whether it be about propaganda/mass psychology etc. or whatever is rather fitting. It's congruent with the topic, but quoting Mother Teresa concerning individualism and liberty is slightly obtuse considering the life she led in service to an authoritarian religious elite who believed in no such thing; it can undermine a viewpoint. While I agree with her statement, her words are cheap so I wouldn't quote her. Context really is important if you wish to utilise the words attributed to others and will strengthen your viewpoint.

That's my jist.


I never went to college/university either and iit shouldn't matter once you have a sense of understading, which I believe you have anyway.

Ye gods, man/shark/thing! You don't need to quote anyone!

The only reason anyone should have for doing so is if they want to back up their argument with the other person's opinion. If the other person is Hitler, it might be a bit counter-productive. Say Hitler loved the taste of strawberry jam and expressed it as

Quote"Strawberry jam is a glorious taste sensation and must surely be that which the Gods themselves spread upon their titanic sandwiches. Never before has such pleasure been experienced by mortal tastebuds",

you don't then quote that and attribute it to him, 'cos people would just wonder why you're bringing Hitler into a conversation about sandwich fillings in the first place and start wondering if you think he's a good person for quotes generally, and if you might agree with some of his other, more controversial opinions and then they'd think you were a nazi and avoid you at dinner parties. *

You're better off just saying you like strawberry jam.

* Past experience has taught me this.

This is a fascinating conversation.

I always believed that the message was more important than the messenger, now I'm beginning to suspect that this quite possibly isn't always the case.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine (who, in late 1776 published The Crisis pamphlet series to inspire the Americans in their battles against the British army. The bastard!)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back in the room.

Quote from: House of Usher on 18 March, 2011, 12:45:37 PM
P.S. - David Cameron doesn't want your census returns; he'd rather have the money. It's the Office for National Statistics that does want them. For the purpose of producing statistics (ooh, sinister!).

;)

It came up in the boozer last night - is there anything to stop other parts of government sifting through this data to try and catch people out on tax or benefits, as life is a little more slippery and fluid than the constraints of a form allows, so people are going to be loath to make a rod for their own back. They do seem awfully interested in who you work for and the like.

Is the sheer amount of data they are scooping up really that necessary? Anyone know how big these things were in the past?

As we know data security seems to be piss poor, so how can we be sure no one is downloading it onto a memory stick and flogging it on? And I suspect it doesn't matter if this is out sourced or kept in public hands as they both seem about as incompetent as each other when it comes to this. Identity theft is A Big Deal and I'm not too happy about the idea of so much of it being collected by one body.

Quote from: TordelBack on 18 March, 2011, 02:24:33 PM

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 March, 2011, 02:04:49 PM
But the 'none' box deals with this. Being an atheist is not a religion, so by definition you have 'none'. Unless I'm doing it wrong.

I think there is a distinction, although not one that would bother me personally - you're not part of one of the list of organised religions, but you assert your atheism as a firm position of belief.

Its a good point - atheism is a belief system and is probably at least as valid as those ticking that they believe in God without actually going to church or praying for much beyond a win on the lottery.

It is we shifty agnostics who should be made to fill in the "other" section.

Winston Churchill?  Mother Teresa?  Stalin?  Hitler?  What've they got to do with the Census form?  I'm now completely lost.  Only thing I can think of is that they're all going to be up in front of the "beak in the sky" 'cos they won't be filling the bloody thing in!!

'twould appear Oul Sharkie-pants is trying to hijack every other thread on the board.

About the whole Ulster-scots thing, I ticked the box claiming I could fully understand it, because despite never having any formal education or interest in it, I can understand it. And so can you.

Osking eef yew kin speek Ulsterscots ees lyk osking eef yew kin styll reed a sentinse, eefin eef its garbowled leek liss

Quote from: pops1983 on 19 March, 2011, 08:00:17 PM
'twould appear Oul Sharkie-pants is trying to hijack every other thread on the board.

To be fair, you opened the thread with a question. 

And, in my own defence, I did recognise and admit to my hijackings and tried to mitigate the damage by creating a thread of my own.

He's a fakkin' shark.

An' don't nobody forget it!

Just got mine through the door tonight!  Havent opened it yet but plan to read thru and fill it in tomorrow.  I regularly use the old census records to look up the family tree ( have now past the 1000 count of names going back to 1597 ). ((Yes even a blood line to Robert Burns himself ))

Its very important to be truthful in the forms as your ancestors will be looking up your details in 100+ years time to see what you did and where you lived. You dont want them to think your a bit of a nutcase or a complete waste of space.

That's exactly what I want them to think. In fact, I'd rather slip 'neath the waters of eternity leaving nary a ripple.

Quote from: JUDGE BURNS on 19 March, 2011, 08:32:29 PMYou dont want them to think your a bit of a nutcase or a complete waste of space.

Except of course, if you are a bit of a nutcase or a complete waste of space. History needs to be told, because I suspect that accounts for a lot of my ancestors. Unfortunately, beyond a propensity for dying in otherwise avoidable industrial accidents, there is little trace of this in the official documentation.

Quote from: Emperor on 19 March, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
Unfortunately, beyond a propensity for dying in otherwise avoidable industrial accidents, there is little trace of this in the official documentation.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/995784/

Too scary to watch much of there, it is like a couple of centuries-worth of ancestors all buying the farm in under 10 minues.

Anyway I ran across this when I had a couple of minutes to catch up with today's paper:

QuoteA growing number of people are planning to boycott this year's census amid increasing fears about data security and the involvement of arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Many campaigners are angry that the £150m contract to run the census has been awarded to the American arms company while others claim the legal safeguards in place to prevent breaches in data security are "so flimsy as to be useless".

Chris Browne, from the Count Me Out campaign, said: "The more people who find out about the involvement of the world's largest arms producer in our census, the more civil dissent we will witness, and the bigger the campaign will get."

...

"I have no objection to the census itself because I recognise that it has served an important purpose historically," said Emma Draper, an anti-arms trade  campaigner from London:. "However, I think it is outrageous that the government can get away with paying a huge arms company millions of pounds in order to process data which is supposed to be of benefit to public services and people's welfare."

Lockheed Martin, which makes Trident nuclear missiles and F-16 fighter jets, won the £150m contract in 2008.

...

Symon Hill, writer and associate director of Christian thinktank Ekklesia, said many people remained unhappy about the decision and that he would be among those not be filling out the census. "Lockheed Martin is a company that has armed dictatorships around the world that has played a heavy role in the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq... I have reflected at great length. I have not taken this decision lightly but I feel that being asked to fill in the census is being asked to co-operate with an arms company and, as a Christian and as a pacifist, that is something that I feel I can not do in conscience."

...

Lockheed Martin does more than 60% of its work for the US defence department and assists more than two dozen American government agencies. It is also reportedly involved in surveillance and data processing for the CIA and the FBI.

Campaigners fear that because it is a US company and therefore subject to the Patriot Act, which allows the US government access to any data in its possession, US authorities could have access to personal data on the UK's entire population.

...

Douwe Korff, professor of international law at London Metropolitan University, has questioned the security arrangements, warning that the "legal safeguards against breaches of confidentiality are so flimsy as to be useless".

"In a democracy under the rule of law, one should not have to rely on blind trust in the authorities; the law should guarantee restraint," he wrote in a recent paper. "However, the law that applies to the census data shortly to be collected does nothing of the sort. It does not stand in the way of the UK police, or intelligence services, or indeed foreign law enforcement agencies and secret services, seeking access – not just in exceptional cases but for general 'trawling' or 'fishing'."

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/18/lockheed-martin-targeted-census-protesters

The sidebar also address an issue with the religion question, something that was raised last time and no one did anything about:

QuoteIn a separate challenge to the 2011 census, the British Humanist Association says the wording of the only optional question – "What is your religion?" – is biased and will give "a wholly misleading picture of religiosity in the UK".

Naomi Phillips of the BHA said: "Every other social survey, including the British Social Attitudes survey, asks non-leading questions on religion and has found the number of non-religious people to be at around 30-50%.

"But this wording is hugely biased, assuming people have a religion. In the 2001 census the same wording was used and it found more than 70% of people identified as Christian. This cut the number of non-religious people, according to other surveys, in half."

She said the question was placed in the section on culture and ethnicity in the census and so encouraged people to "think of themselves as 'white, British, Christian' or whatever, which merges ideas of culture, ethnicity and race".

So it is important to answer that question clearly, sticking Jedi in isn't going to be that helpful ;)

Considering nearly a billion people willingly gave their personal details to Facebook without a second thought, shows how unthinking people can be.