I just popped in to get out from under the feet of the movers. Don't ya hate moving? Even though the new place is big and beautiful (and empty for now) it is such a mission packing up the boxes threads and sorting them out again. I discovered the joy of a professional de-clutterer recently and will never ever move house or office again without her. She doesn't do discussion boards alas.

Okay, I'll make a cuppa for the lads and then leave them to it.....

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

candide wrote:

I just popped in to get out from under the feet of the movers. Don't ya hate moving? Even though the new place is big and beautiful (and empty for now) it is such a mission packing up the boxes threads and sorting them out again. I discovered the joy of a professional de-clutterer recently and will never ever move house or office again without her. She doesn't do discussion boards alas.

Okay, I'll make a cuppa for the lads and then leave them to it.....

I've come across a couple of professional declutterers in my time and their wonderful transformative power. When the place starts to get overrun with paperwork, I get itchy and agitated and have to clear out stuff. That doesn't mean I don't hoard - I have the attic neatly organised but rather full of old furniture I want to revitalise, paint, re-upholster and bits that will have a useful life in the garden.

You'll find that it's a way of life, rather than an event candide and I recommend a book given to me by a good friend called Clear your Clutter with Feng Shui, by Karen Kingston. I would never, ever have bought it myself but found it compelling and impossible not to act on.

Tell us about the new house (assuming you're not just speaking metaphorically here...)

Auditor #9 wrote:

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

Until the internet can do something about the silly buggers who read it & manage to get it arseways, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course they'll get it wrong in a more speedy fashion and be completely up to date in their arsewayness.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

Until the internet can do something about the silly buggers who read it & manage to get it arseways, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course they'll get it wrong in a more speedy fashion and be completely up to date in their arsewayness.

Are you referring to my "misinterpretation" of something in particular.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

Until the internet can do something about the silly buggers who read it & manage to get it arseways, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course they'll get it wrong in a more speedy fashion and be completely up to date in their arsewayness.

Are you referring to my "misinterpretation" of something in particular.

No, I had no one in particular in mind, it was just a general comment.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

Until the internet can do something about the silly buggers who read it & manage to get it arseways, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course they'll get it wrong in a more speedy fashion and be completely up to date in their arsewayness.

Are you referring to my "misinterpretation" of something in particular.

No, I had no one in particular in mind, it was just a general comment.

But it's a very interesting topic don't you think? On balance do you think that information in the hands of the media, the wife, the cook, the thief, her lover as well as the bog standard layman would be interpreted overall in an accurate way, even though there were isolated inaccuracies or "misinterpretations" ?

Would you include yourself in that general comment then, tonys?

I do agree with you though. A quick glance over at the other place (the original other place, not the new other place, and I do mean the other place before our original other place) reveals the sad fact that the internet tends to bring out the worst in us. There is a demographic out there, vastly over-represented on the net, who as a matter of course, almost a way of life, like to take information, misinterpret it, spin it, and if all else fails blatantly lie about it in order to justify a panicked, angry and generally unpleasant disposition. Scaremongering and abuse are their specialities, hobbies and raisons d'etre. It's depressing.

Maybe the problem is the internet's under-inclusive. We need more normal people on the net.

evercloserunion wrote:

Would you include yourself in that general comment then, tonys?

I do agree with you though. A quick glance over at the other place (the original other place, not the new other place, and I do mean the other place before our original other place) reveals the sad fact that the internet tends to bring out the worst in us. There is a demographic out there, vastly over-represented on the net, who as a matter of course, almost a way of life, like to take information, misinterpret it, spin it, and if all else fails blatantly lie about it in order to justify a panicked, angry and generally unpleasant disposition. Scaremongering and abuse are their specialities, hobbies and raisons d'etre. It's depressing.

Maybe the problem is the internet's under-inclusive. We need more normal people on the net.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Are you really moving in reality or are you referring to here? There are tons of threads open and any ones you're burning to have opened will be open to you plus there are 11 forums still open here - all of the Machine Nation ones - hint hint.

Don't you want to pontificate on how the internet might be killing conventional newspapers, how computers could revolutionise society through the delivery of instantaneous, accurate and appropriate information ?

Until the internet can do something about the silly buggers who read it & manage to get it arseways, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course they'll get it wrong in a more speedy fashion and be completely up to date in their arsewayness.

Are you referring to my "misinterpretation" of something in particular.

No, I had no one in particular in mind, it was just a general comment.

But it's a very interesting topic don't you think? On balance do you think that information in the hands of the media, the wife, the cook, the thief, her lover as well as the bog standard layman would be interpreted overall in an accurate way, even though there were isolated inaccuracies or "misinterpretations" ?

Isolated inaccuracies? you say. Lord love you but no, that would not be my experience of the good citizens of the net or anywhere else for that matter.

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

Yebbut- we've always got tonys to tell us so.

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

Isn't it interesting though that people always misunderstand in the direction of their own beliefs and even when they accept that they have in fact misunderstood, they will deny absolutely that it was their own bias that lead to the misunderstanding in the first place.

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

Isn't it interesting though that people always misunderstand in the direction of their own beliefs and even when they accept that they have in fact misunderstood, they will deny absolutely that it was their own bias that lead to the misunderstanding in the first place.

Yes. Anyone who didn't interpret events/information through some kind of conceptual framework would have great difficulty in relating one piece of information to another. The question then comes down to whether the framework is a closed one, that won't allow new, unexpected and conflicting information in, or an open system that allows for old information to be overridden by new, when the old proves to be more accurate.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

Isn't it interesting though that people always misunderstand in the direction of their own beliefs and even when they accept that they have in fact misunderstood, they will deny absolutely that it was their own bias that lead to the misunderstanding in the first place.

Yes. Anyone who didn't interpret events/information through some kind of conceptual framework would have great difficulty in relating one piece of information to another. The question then comes down to whether the framework is a closed one, that won't allow new, unexpected and conflicting information in, or an open system that allows for old information to be overridden by new, when the old proves to be more accurate.

Or more likely we only see what we want & expect to see & only hear what we want to hear and rarely question the "facts" after that.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Inaccuracies, lack of information and disinformation... at your own risk. In favour of the internet, is that we don't have to pay people to read their bizarre opinions (IT please note) and we can answer back. Internet content is sometimes much more informative than the press and sometimes not. The print media rarely get anything completely right or completely wrong.

The internet, on the other hand, rarely gets anything completely right but nearly always gets things completely wrong.

Isn't it interesting though that people always misunderstand in the direction of their own beliefs and even when they accept that they have in fact misunderstood, they will deny absolutely that it was their own bias that lead to the misunderstanding in the first place.

Yes. Anyone who didn't interpret events/information through some kind of conceptual framework would have great difficulty in relating one piece of information to another. The question then comes down to whether the framework is a closed one, that won't allow new, unexpected and conflicting information in, or an open system that allows for old information to be overridden by new, when the old proves to be more accurate.

Or more likely we only see what we want & expect to see & only hear what we want to hear and rarely question the "facts" after that.

The facts sometimes impose themselves on us in such a way that we can't avoid them. evercloserunion posted yesterday about the conflict between reality today and expections for a generation of young Irish people. A conflict like that tends to generate a fair amount of questioning of the original assumptions.