Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

[MarkCorrigan]

And, whatever you do, don't mention Cockney rhyming slang.

I don't know what you mean, Kemosabe.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks, now my entire brain just code-shifted to Michael Caine.

 

[gabeygoat]

I regard U.K. postal codes as an entirely black art. I just assume the owls know where to go.

I fold up my letters to UK friends into a paper airplane, go atop a local mountain and give it a good toss

 

[GlennB]

I regard U.K. postal codes as an entirely black art. I just assume the owls know where to go.

They're very logical. I'm NP4 6TB. NP is Newport, South Wales. 4 refers to a district or small town nearby. 6T gets you much closer and the B narrows it down to a shortish stretch of houses. Add the house number or name and all you actually need is "Dunroamin NP4 6TB" for mail and deliveries to arrive. Skip the other details and it will still get to you.

 

[junkshop]

I regard U.K. postal codes as an entirely black art. I just assume the owls know where to go.

They're very logical. I'm NP4 6TB. NP is Newport, South Wales. 4 refers to a district or small town nearby. 6T gets you much closer and the B narrows it down to a shortish stretch of houses. Add the house number or name and all you actually need is "Dunroamin NP4 6TB" for mail and deliveries to arrive. Skip the other details and it will still get to you.

The uk postcode system is really rather magnificent. Unfortunately sucessful delivery relies on the ability of of the postmen/women to understand / have time to deal with /or give a flying **** about it.

As a former postman I am aware of the pressure put on last-stage delivery persons. I am also aware of how few of my co-workers understood how addresses work. Or numbers. Or maps. Or words. Or the difference between left and right.

Honestley, I'm amazed that any post ever reaches it's intended destination*. I suspect that owls would be an improvement.

_{*I was going to say "in a timely manner", but I couldn't do it without giggling. Sorry..}

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The uk postcode system is really rather magnificent. Unfortunately sucessful delivery relies on the ability of of the postmen/women to understand / have time to deal with /or give a flying **** about it.

As a former postman I am aware of the pressure put on last-stage delivery persons. I am also aware of how few of my co-workers understood how addresses work. Or numbers. Or maps. Or words. Or the difference between left and right.

Honestley, I'm amazed that any post ever reaches it's intended destination*. I suspect that owls would be an improvement.

_{*I was going to say "in a timely manner", but I couldn't do it without giggling. Sorry..}

It surprises me to hear you say that as my experience as a lifetime customer of the Royal Mail has always been pretty good, and I don't think I've ever had a postman/woman who wasn't excellent. Our regular postman is an absolute star (although he's currently off sick. Get well soon Dean if you happen to see this).

Privatisation is damaging the service but the workers at the front line are still head & shoulders above most of the alternatives. Especially one I won't mention that seems to Drop, Punt then Deliver....


But yeah, the West Midlands.. We tried to find a friend's house in the West Midlands from the postcode in the very early days of consumer GPS , by logging waypoints from a map on my home PC. Problem was the house was a very new build so the estate wasn't on the map & it had been built on the site of a huge factory and all had the same postcode.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And, whatever you do, don't mention Cockney rhyming slang.

Bollocks! I'd forgotten that one...

 

[JayUtah]

5 pages? Really? 5 sodding pages?

I think this thread will quiet down now, as I highly doubt Vixen will set foot in it again. She has straw-manned her way into believing she's the only one who ever heard of using primes notation to label a time duration. Nevermind that the operative complaint amid her nostalgia is that she's using it wrong. And don't expect any evidence for the patently absurd recollection that her Own Private Hogwarts was okay with ″ meaning either minutes or seconds arbitrarily. As in so many other cases, it comes down to improbable, unverifiable, and mercurial explanations that post-justify her presumption to speak with infallible authority on any subject. Her unique and impressive upbringing never fails with a relevant anecdotal accomplishment, presented for the edification of the poor benighted fools she's forced to share the world with.

And she has misrepresented and cherry-picked her critics' posts here to manufacture yet another pearl-clutching grievance of being falsely accused. Apparently we're just supposed to turn a blind eye to her customary practice of ignoring the bulk of thorough, well-documented posts and responding offhandedly instead to some minor tangent she can take offense from. She probably knows we'll eventually grow tired of trying to keep the facts front and center as she waxes ever more distraught in her victimhood. After all, you can't be a true free thinker and speak your truth to power unless you can show that the powers-that-be are persecuting you.

So now that she's restored her senses of intellectual superiority and moral rectitude, she has no further need to participate in this thread.

 

[Vixen]

I think this thread will quiet down now, as I highly doubt Vixen will set foot in it again. She has straw-manned her way into believing she's the only one who ever heard of using primes notation to label a time duration. Nevermind that the operative complaint amid her nostalgia is that she's using it wrong. And don't expect any evidence for the patently absurd recollection that her Own Private Hogwarts was okay with ″ meaning either minutes or seconds arbitrarily. As in so many other cases, it comes down to improbable, unverifiable, and mercurial explanations that post-justify her presumption to speak with infallible authority on any subject. Her unique and impressive upbringing never fails with a relevant anecdotal accomplishment, presented for the edification of the poor benighted fools she's forced to share the world with.

And she has misrepresented and cherry-picked her critics' posts here to manufacture yet another pearl-clutching grievance of being falsely accused. Apparently we're just supposed to turn a blind eye to her customary practice of ignoring the bulk of thorough, well-documented posts and responding offhandedly instead to some minor tangent she can take offense from. She probably knows we'll eventually grow tired of trying to keep the facts front and center as she waxes ever more distraught in her victimhood. After all, you can't be a true free thinker and speak your truth to power unless you can show that the powers-that-be are persecuting you.

So now that she's restored her senses of intellectual superiority and moral rectitude, she has no further need to participate in this thread.

<shrug> I just happened to mention a throwaway comment by my ex-mother-in-law about how she rued how Sutton Coldfield (or some nearby offshoot region) now had a West Midlands, or was it Birmingham, postcode, as it always prided itself as a separate town. You would have thought this was the most controversial statement ever made. The ensuing debate about postcodes (or even cockney) was quite interesting, though. Even the time notation thing was food for thought. The title of the piece of music 4'33" was considered an outlier. Who would have thought that it is now considered the norm? That is the power of the internet. Forcing us all to conform to new standards.

Then there was the time I wrote 'an historical' and was loudly told I was not allowed to use the article 'an' before an 'h'-word.

 

[JayUtah]

Even the time notation thing was food for thought.

You've displayed no thought about it beyond how you can spin the debate and manufacture enough tall tales to maintain the illusion of infallibility. 35″ does not mean thirty-five minutes of time. It has never meant thirty-five minutes of time. By the conventions of the system to which it belongs, it cannot mean thirty-five minutes of time. You've provided zero evidence for your claim that it can.

Because of this we have no reason to consider you technically or morally competent to question the work of experts in their respective fields.

The title of the piece of music 4'33" was considered an outlier. Who would have thought that it is now considered the norm? That is the power of the internet. Forcing us all to conform to new standards.

It isn't a new standard. It's a long-disused, no-longer-taught standard. But when it was in use it was a standard. And despite your self-serving claims, that standard does not allow you to write 35″ and expect it to be understood as thirty-five minutes of time in any context. It's not that you were educated differently. It's not that different conventions apply in different parts of the world. It has nothing to do with inferred context.

You are simply wrong.

You wrote it correctly in later posts in the original thread. All you had to do was say something to the effect that you mistakenly used the wrong symbol and that you would be more careful in future. But you did not. As you frequently do, you doubled-down on your error and continue to do so, apparently hoping to maintain an illusion of competence.

Your pathological unwillingness to admit error, and your preference to fill the internet instead with further unfounded claims and patent nonsense means you deserve no attention as someone who purports to question the work of people who can actually demonstrate they know what they're talking about and doing. You can either continue acting like a clown and be treated as one, or you can offer an unqualified admission of your error. Your choice.

Then there was the time I wrote 'an historical' and was loudly told I was not allowed to use the article 'an' before an 'h'-word.

Knock of the smoke-screen rambling. Either supply evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

 

[Mojo]

Then there was the time I wrote 'an historical' and was loudly told I was not allowed to use the article 'an' before an 'h'-word.

While technically correct, "an historical" is pretty much an obsolete usage outside of hard-core pedants (and Cockneys).

 

[Vixen]

You've displayed no thought about it beyond how you can spin the debate and manufacture enough tall tales to maintain the illusion of infallibility. 35″ does not mean thirty-five minutes of time. It has never meant thirty-five minutes of time. By the conventions of the system to which it belongs, it cannot mean thirty-five minutes of time. You've provided zero evidence for your claim that it can.

Because of this we have no reason to consider you technically or morally competent to question the work of experts in their respective fields.



It isn't a new standard. It's a long-disused, no-longer-taught standard. But when it was in use it was a standard. And despite your self-serving claims, that standard does not allow you to write 35″ and expect it to be understood as thirty-five minutes of time in any context. It's not that you were educated differently. It's not that different conventions apply in different parts of the world. It has nothing to do with inferred context.

You are simply wrong.

You wrote it correctly in later posts in the original thread. All you had to do was say something to the effect that you mistakenly used the wrong symbol and that you would be more careful in future. But you did not. As you frequently do, you doubled-down on your error and continue to do so, apparently hoping to maintain an illusion of competence.

Your pathological unwillingness to admit error, and your preference to fill the internet instead with further unfounded claims and patent nonsense means you deserve no attention as someone who purports to question the work of people who can actually demonstrate they know what they're talking about and doing. You can either continue acting like a clown and be treated as one, or you can offer an unqualified admission of your error. Your choice.



Knock of the smoke-screen rambling. Either supply evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

I am sorry my writing 35" caused you great anger. However, as I said, it is something that is in perfectly good faith and under no circumstance can it be interpreted as meaning that I was claiming the Estonia vessel sank in 35 inches of water, just because 99% of posters here have never heard of " being used for duration of time (or so they claim). That is hardly something I have control over.

 

[Mojo]

I am sorry my writing 35" caused you great anger. However, as I said, it is something that is in perfectly good faith and under no circumstance can it be interpreted as meaning that I was claiming the Estonia vessel sank in 35 inches of water, just because 99% of posters here have never heard of " being used for duration of time (or so they claim). That is hardly something I have control over.

It didn't sink in 35 seconds either. Any meaning of 35" would have been nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

While technically correct, "an historical" is pretty much an obsolete usage outside of hard-core pedants (and Cockneys).

This proves my point that there is a handful of people who insist on accusing me of wrongdoing where there has been none.

 

[zooterkin]

Then there was the time I wrote 'an historical' and was loudly told I was not allowed to use the article 'an' before an 'h'-word.

You'll be able to link to that?

(I suspect not. I could find maybe a dozen times where you wrote 'an historical' and no-one told you, loudly (what does that even mean in the context of a text-based forum?) or otherwise, that you were not allowed to do it.)

 

[JayUtah]

I am sorry my writing 35" caused you great anger.

Misrepresenting me again. What prompted my criticism was your expectation that 35″ should have been properly understood by all to mean thirty-five minutes of time. What has maintained my criticism is your ongoing insistence that you have not erred in any way, either in writing what you wrote or in holding that what you wrote and what you intended by it are appropriate according to the relevant standard. You have concocted a contradictory series of fanciful explanations for the latter, but provided no evidence for any of it. I intend to hold you accountable for such dishonestly until you own and abandon it.

There is no "great anger." You can stop trying to curry sympathy by playing victim. There is only the desire to hold you accountable to the requirements of the station to which you seem believe you are entitled, and to the production of any evidence for any of the preposterous explanations you've proffered.

However, as I said, it is something that is in perfectly good faith...

No. In your effort to appear clever, your usage was both ambiguous and wrong. Your expectation that it should have been plainly understood is unfounded. Your further excuse that it is somehow acceptable under the relevant standard is incorrect. I detect no good faith on your part, and for that reason dismiss you as a trustworthy and competent critic of the investigations into the sinking of MS Estonia.

...and under no circumstance can it be interpreted as meaning that I was claiming the Estonia vessel sank in 35 inches of water

Asked and answered. Since you provided no context for your statement, and since you used the primes notation incorrectly for minutes, guessing that you meant thirty-five inches of linear extent by writing 35″ is by no means inappropriate. It may be absurd, but your critics are quite used to you writing absurdities. The circumstance under which some of your critics had a good laugh at your expense is that 35″ written without any further information most commonly today means thirty-five inches.

...just because 99% of posters here have never heard of " being used for duration of time (or so they claim).

Even those of us who know of primes notation for time durations could see that you were using it incorrectly. You realized this, and properly corrected your notation. But you continue to draw criticism because you continue to insist that primes notation still allows ″ to indicate minutes of time according to context.

This is simply wrong.

That is hardly something I have control over.

If no one can figure out what you're trying to say because you're ambiguously invoking a disused notation, and using it incorrectly, then that is entirely your fault.

 

[Vixen]

Misrepresenting me again. What prompted my criticism was your expectation that 35″ should have been properly understood by all to mean thirty-five minutes of time. What has maintained my criticism is your ongoing insistence that you have not erred in any way, either in writing what you wrote or in holding that what you wrote and what you intended by it are appropriate according to the relevant standard. You have concocted a contradictory series of fanciful explanations for the latter, but provided no evidence for any of it. I intend to hold you accountable for such dishonestly until you own and abandon it.

There is no "great anger." You can stop trying to curry sympathy by playing victim. There is only the desire to hold you accountable to the requirements of the station to which you seem believe you are entitled, and to the production of any evidence for any of the preposterous explanations you've proffered.



No. In your effort to appear clever, your usage was both ambiguous and wrong. Your expectation that it should have been plainly understood is unfounded. Your further excuse that it is somehow acceptable under the relevant standard is incorrect. I detect no good faith on your part, and for that reason dismiss you as a trustworthy and competent critic of the investigations into the sinking of MS Estonia.



Asked and answered. Since you provided no context for your statement, and since you used the primes notation incorrectly for minutes, guessing that you meant thirty-five inches of linear extent by writing 35″ is by no means inappropriate. It may be absurd, but your critics are quite used to you writing absurdities. The circumstance under which some of your critics had a good laugh at your expense is that 35″ written without any further information most commonly today means thirty-five inches.



Even those of us who know of primes notation for time durations could see that you were using it incorrectly. You realized this, and properly corrected your notation. But you continue to draw criticism because you continue to insist that primes notation still allows ″ to indicate minutes of time according to context.

This is simply wrong.



If no one can figure out what you're trying to say because you're ambiguously invoking a disused notation, and using it incorrectly, then that is entirely your fault.

I set you straight and I went to some length to explain its use to you. I am guessing your antipathy towards all things myself is based on some problem you have with me. Perhaps tall poppy syndrome or some kind of 'Men Only' exclusivity, like how dare I participate in a debate and offer an opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

This proves my point that there is a handful of people who insist on accusing me of wrongdoing where there has been none.

Oh, stop it. You're not a victim.

If people want to point out that your English diction is outdated, then doing so is not necessarily a criticism, including in this case.

If they point out that your usage of primes notation to indicate time duration is outdated, then your smug insistence that they should nevertheless have known what you meant is going to net you some well-earned criticism. If you want to be clearly understood, write clearly. If instead you want to try to be clever and, in the process, lose your audience, then take your lumps silently.

If they point out that your usage of primes notation for time duration is flat-out wrong, then you're not being persecuted in any way. Just admit your error. But when you double-down on the error instead and backpedal, deflect, recriminate, scold, and spin tall tales for which you refuse to supply evidence—and people bring the receipts for your having done all that—then no, whining that you're being improperly accused of wrongdoing is just immature and off-putting.

Get over yourself. You claim it was acceptable for ″ to indicate minutes of time. Either provide evidence for that claim, or admit that your use of if in that way was an error.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, stop it. You're not a victim.

If people want to point out that your English diction is outdated, then doing so is not necessarily a criticism, including in this case.

If they point out that your usage of primes notation to indicate time duration is outdated, then your smug insistence that they should nevertheless have known what you meant is going to net you some well-earned criticism. If you want to be clearly understood, write clearly. If instead you want to try to be clever and, in the process, lose your audience, then take your lumps silently.

If they point out that your usage of primes notation for time duration is flat-out wrong, then you're not being persecuted in any way. Just admit your error. But when you double-down on the error instead and backpedal, deflect, recriminate, scold, and spin tall tales for which you refuse to supply evidence—and people bring the receipts for your having done all that—then no, whining that you're being improperly accused of wrongdoing is just immature and off-putting.

Get over yourself. You claim it was acceptable for ″ to indicate minutes of time. Either provide evidence for that claim, or admit that your use of if in that way was an error.

So you keep saying. Duly noted.

It doesn't change the truth of the matter of the convention of my schooling and how we notated time duration, albeit in full wording in formal reports. You cannot change the truth by repeating a refutation any number of times. Your assertion doesn't negate the reality of my experience.

 

[JayUtah]

I set you straight...

No. You pontificated on what you wanted acceptable usage to be, in contravention of the standard. You are not the teacher. What you're trying to rewrite to suit your ego is instead literally part of my licensed, professional training.

I know that you are wrong. You seem unwilling to believe that this is something people can do.

...and I went to some length to explain its use to you.

You went to some length to proffer a completely fanciful alternative set of rules by which primes notation could be used in the way you attempted to use it. I went to some length to show you first how your story changed as you attempted to accommodate your critics' statements. I then went to greater length to explain why your alternative set of rules does not hold, and in fact cannot hold according to the principles by which primes notation operates.

You did not respond to any of that. You simply maintained, and continue to maintain, that ″ can be used in primes notation to indicate minutes of time variously according to context, and that such usage was accepted and understood by others. You have provided absolutely no evidence for any of that, nor addressed in any meaningful way the attempts of more knowledgeable people to correct you.

I am guessing your antipathy towards all things myself is based on some problem you have with me.

Correct. Here is the problem I have with you. You allege facts that are false and pretend that you are competent to know and state them as evidence. Further, you disregard the possibility that anyone can know the correct facts and thereby know that you are wrong. Your argument rarely rises above, "Because I say so," and you seem to expect that others will agree on that basis that you are intellectually and morally superior. For you to behave that way and still demand to be taken seriously is your problem.

Perhaps tall poppy syndrome...

No, you are not be resented for your accomplishments. In fact, you are being held accountable to demonstrate the evidence of all the accomplishments you claim. You claim or insinuate competence in a number of specialized fields. But every attempt to get you to demonstrate appropriate competence is met instead with clear evidence of your incompetence. Physics is only the most adroit example of that.

...or some kind of 'Men Only' exclusivity...

No, the arguments against you are not sexist in nature. You do seem so very determined to wallow in victimhood according to increasingly desperate criteria.

...like how dare I participate in a debate...

You are not being criticized merely because you wish to debate. You are being criticized for debating dishonestly. You seem to think that any opposition to your statements in a debate constitutes some sort of personal attack against you. If you spout demonstrable nonsense, people will challenge it. That's the essence of debate.

...and offer an opinion.

You are not being criticized for offering opinion. You are being criticized for alleging facts you intend to stand as evidence, but without being willing to supply a suitable foundation for them. Most often you allege facts based solely on your own knowledge and belief. When we test that knowledge, we find it to be deficient. This upsets you.

The statement

The symbol ″ was and can be used by convention or standard to indicate either minutes or seconds of time, depending on context.​

is not an opinion. It is allegation of fact. The statement

Any ship that passes its critical roll angle will inevitably turn turtle and float for several hours.​

is not an opinion. It's an allegation of fact, and one that would ordinarily require considerable knowledge of physical law and ship construction to make with the intent that it stand as evidence. The statement

FX is used in screenplays the way I use it in this forum.​

is not an opinion. It's an allegation of fact that requires a foundation of knowledge or evidence in order to have evidentiary weight.

Any more straw men today?