[slackline]

why report that it's shit at this moment in time?

I believe its called "current affairs".

[a dense loner]

I know.

"It's a bit shit today, it's day 25 out of day 2500 we predicted it'd be shit for. More news tomorrow"

[tomtom]

I know.

"It's a bit shit today, it's day 25 out of day 2500 we predicted it'd be shit for. More news tomorrow"

It's probably more important than 'man grows record size cucumber' or the usual nothing's happening summer news

[Fultonius]

Fultonius, I notice you didn't backlink your quotes or give sources but I'm curious to know how many of the red ones were from The Guardian or FT websites?

Oh fuck off you dick. 2 links form the Guardian, one positive (which wasn't there before...) and one negative, and 1 from the FT.






P.S. if you're genuinely "interested" and not just trying to score points about Guardian readers, then it would take you a few moments to google those headlines - far less than the 15 minutes it took me to copy them all across.

[a dense loner]

Look at what discussing politics in an adult manner has done to Ukb. Nobody posts on anything else anymore, except maybe power club, just brother turning against brother.

[Fultonius]

Look at what discussing politics in an adult manner has done to Ukb. Nobody posts on anything else anymore, except maybe power club, just brother turning against brother.

True. I just was raging Jooser's lazy stereotyping after I had spent a reasonable amount of time collecting information in the most impartial way I could.

[A Jooser]

So Jooser - for us academics it's just tough shit....

No, I didn't say that.

It's an awful and unnecessary situation that's entirely political, and I hope those in science/academia are pressuring the politicians to put it right. Something may be understandable but that doesn't necessarily make it reasonable, and I'm just looking for a bit of reason in this whole affair. Let us hope that a reasonable solution for the post-EU future of UK science, as outlined in some of those links, is sought.

Sorry, Fultonius, if my semi-rhetorical question seemed overly aggressive, it wasn't meant to be. After I'd posted I did search those headlines and found that three of the negative ones were The Guardian, three the BBC and one FT but also, predictably, the green (positive) one was the Express. It's surely not a slight on anyone to point out that pre-referendum bias in reporting has continued post-referendum.

Quote

    PwC forecasts slowdown in Northern Ireland economy after Brexit result

Quote

    PwC forecasts no post Brexit recession for Northern Ireland

These two stories are reporting exactly the same thing, a 0.2% growth prediction for the NI economy, but as you've quite rightly noted there's a different emphasis in the headline. The negative one is the BBC, and the more positive one is the Irish Times. This to me is interesting, but I'm just making an observation.

Just as during the campaign, there's a lot of exaggeration on either side of the argument. What I'm hoping for now - from UK/EU politicians, the mainstream media and in public discourse - is civility, balance and rational thought.

[slackline]

From the London School of Economics blog...

David Davis has demonstrated a decidedly muddled understanding of trade policy

The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU.

[a dense loner]

You didn't emphasise the bit in the first paragraph where it says there is no precedent so it's all a bit hypothetical?

[tregiffian]

We are in uncharted territory where there be an assortment of dragons to be dealt with.

[slackline]

You didn't emphasise the bit in the first paragraph where it says there is no precedent so it's all a bit hypothetical?

I didn't need to, if people are bothered they'll do exactly as you have done and go and read the article in full for themselves.  That is the way the Web works, linking between sources of information so there is no need to regurgitate every single point.  I purposefully chose to link to that particular article where the authors had analysed the claim Cecilia Malmstrom made whilst being interviewed, as it gives more in-depth analysis of the claim and how things might pan out than the interview itself.

The law isn't hypothetical though, it is as stated, but as the article states and you've picked up on its never been tested.  That doesn't mean that just because its not been tested the law won't be borne out, its quite reasonable to expect it to be, but its possible it won't be.

Beyond this the blog post highlights that its a rather fanciful of Davis and the government to think that they will be able to negotiate trade agreements quickly, the precedent is that they take a long time.  There is also the problem that the civil service currently only has about 50 trade negotiaters and need to recruit many more, making the task of undertaking trade negotiations simultaenously with many countries even more challenging.

[a dense loner]

Ah ok you imply something as fact in the hope that someone else has to read the link to discount what you say as fact. What a wonderful way to use the web. No wonder people second guess each other all the time. Brilliant.

[slackline]

Ah ok you imply something as fact in the hope that someone else has to read the link to discount what you say as fact. What a wonderful way to use the web. No wonder people second guess each other all the time. Brilliant.

I am not an expert on any of these matters, I read what I can to inform myself.  On a forum where people discuss topics that none of them are experts in it is only sensible to share thoe sources of information we use to inform ourselves so that others can read them themselves.  This is a wonderful way to use the web and is the intention with which Berners-Lee designed the Web to work, sharing information, which previously had a technical barrier to it requiring people to be a little more IT savvy than the average computer user was willing to invest time in learning.

I don't, nor would I, retype or copy and paste a whole article into a forum so that it is perfectly represented, that is a complete and utter waste of time, when I can instead link to it, which is quicker and more informative, because unless I copy and pasted the whole article you can guarantee some prick like you would come along and say "Ah but you missed out X", so instead the best solution is to link to it and let people go and read it for themselves.

Had I wanted to imply something I would state it without linking to further information because, having read the article, I was fully aware that there was no precedent.  If I wanted to imply or give others the impression that its not been tested why would I link to the full article that goes into to detail and digs into the claim?

Whats is it about this that you're struggling to get your head around?  It seems to me you're just purposefully trolling. 

[a dense loner]

Do I need to remind you of the forum rules you're so quick to remind others of?

[slackline]

Do whatever you like.

I made the personal attack (calling you a         ), considered a bannable offence but noted as 'fair enough' if someone is  trolling, because.....I think you are trolling, which is itself a bannable offence.

Instead of trolling try explaining what it is you don't like about the process of linking to articles I describe above.

[a dense loner]

I see your defense for your attack is that I'm trolling. Brilliant. I explained it in the post immediately after your post but you obviously didn't see it.

Is there any reason slack line is still a member of this forum?

[petejh]

Intelligent people can justify anything they want, can't they Slackers.

You'll be putting a cock on your avatar next and saying it's not a cock but a bell curve.

[a dense loner]

Why would he have an avatar? He shouldn't be on here again.

If there's anything I've learnt from this personal attack it's don't react in anger else you spell "defence" wrong

[kelvin]

It's probably more important than 'man grows record size cucumber' or the usual nothing's happening summer news

Had a Terry Pratchett moment there and thought I'd picked up my Kobo.

[Jaspersharpe]

I know Dense is joking but if everyone who called anyone a twat (or worse) on here was banned then there'd be nobody left. I'd definitely have been banned about 1000 times.

So stop being a cunt Dense. 😝

[Oldmanmatt]

Why would he have an avatar? He shouldn't be on here again.

If there's anything I've learnt from this personal attack it's don't react in anger else you spell "defence" wrong

That's ok Dence, easy mitsake...



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.

[metal arms]

60 pages what the fuck?
Anyone got the TL;DR?

*logs back out*

[chris j]

The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU.

Technically, Ms Malmstrom will most probably be correct. But it does rather beg the question what penalties the EU could practically apply if we do carry out negotiations with a third party during the exit process. What are they going to do, threaten to kick us out of the club?

[tomtom]

Looks like even the Torygraph has got fed up with all the politics/Brexit stuff - and is focussing instead on pussy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/larry-the-cat-treated-by-vet-amid-turf-war-fracas-with-rival-pal/

[psychomansam]

The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU.

Technically, Ms Malmstrom will most probably be correct. But it does rather beg the question what penalties the EU could practically apply if we do carry out negotiations with a third party during the exit process. What are they going to do, threaten to kick us out of the club?

It's fairly widely accepted that pissing all over the previous agreements you undertook with another party, while often counter-productive, is particularly foolish when undertaken concurrently with attempting to come to new agreements with said party.

But, I mean, it's not like our economy fucking depends on trade with Europe or anything.