MacBook back-up necessity
in [UK Mac]
|
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Jun 2010 15:07 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Once I lost them all, I never attached any meaning to them once i > > started regaining them. I don't know, I expected them to go again. > > So your books were lost in a fire, and that meant you ended up > considering books worthless? > > </DEEPLY/ puzzled> Once he lost his books, he discovered that he didn't have the same relationship with them as he had before - as if perhaps they might disappear once again. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Jun 2010 16:43 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > Uhuh. So you're just being contrary for the sake of > > getting a rise out of me, yes? > > What are you talking about? Since it's perfectly obvious what I'm on about, this question of yours is another ill-meant wind-up in the same vein. I'm pretty damned annoyed with you. > > > > Assume no spare space for any more books in the house, nor any off-site > > > > storage available without paying for it. > > > > > > > > (the above is roughly my situation) > > > > > > > > > I lost loads in a fire once. That is probably why I don't care > > > > > much about books these days. > > > > > > > > <puzzled> Does not compute. > > > > > > Once I lost them all, I never attached any meaning to them once i > > > started regaining them. I don't know, I expected them to go again. > > > > So your books were lost in a fire, and that meant you ended up > > considering books worthless? > > > > </DEEPLY/ puzzled> > > > > Still does not compute. > > Why would it have to compute? That is how it affected me, it is an > emotion, not a decision. <sigh> Humour. Have you heard of it? What the above phrase was meant as was an application of humour to a situation. It's me picking a hopefully mildly funny mode of pointing out that I don't understand, don't get it - with a side-band indicating that the problem is probably down to something particular about your emotional make-up that I do not share with you. Of course you will insult me by suggesting that the reason for that is my mental health problems now that I've explained that in full. But I had been hoping that this time, I might just be able to persuade you to explain a point rather than just insult me when I make it clear I don't understand. So much for *that* hope... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 29 Jun 2010 17:09 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > wrote: >> >>> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] > >>> Uhuh. So you're just being contrary for the sake of >>> getting a rise out of me, yes? >> >> What are you talking about? > > Since it's perfectly obvious what I'm on about, this question of yours > is another ill-meant wind-up in the same vein. I'm pretty damned > annoyed with you. If it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked. >>>>> Assume no spare space for any more books in the house, nor any > > > > > off-siteq >>>>> storage available without paying for it. >>>>> >>>>> (the above is roughly my situation) >>>>> >>>>>> I lost loads in a fire once. That is probably why I don't care >>>>>> much about books these days. >>>>> >>>>> <puzzled> Does not compute. >>>> >>>> Once I lost them all, I never attached any meaning to them once i >>>> started regaining them. I don't know, I expected them to go again. >>> >>> So your books were lost in a fire, and that meant you ended up >>> considering books worthless? >>> >>> </DEEPLY/ puzzled> >>> >>> Still does not compute. >> >> Why would it have to compute? That is how it affected me, it is an >> emotion, not a decision. > > <sigh> Humour. Have you heard of it? What the above phrase was > meant > as was an application of humour to a situation. I have, I live by it. However, as you don't often use it, and berated me a few weeks ago for not using a smiley to show that I was using humour, I didn't notice, sorry. > It's me picking a hopefully mildly funny mode of pointing out that I > don't understand, don't get it - with a side-band indicating that the > problem is probably down to something particular about your emotional > make-up that I do not share with you. I fully agree. I think our difference on this is that you don't understand my reaction to something but feel you need to understand. I also don't understand my reaction to it it, but don't really feel it important enough to worry about. > Of course you will insult me by suggesting that the reason for that is > my mental health problems now that I've explained that in full. No I won't. As I said before, I am not insulting anyone until I feel insulted, which you haven't yet. > But I had been hoping that this time, I might just be able to persuade > you to explain a point rather than just insult me when I make it clear > I > don't understand. Reasonable hope, but the problem is that I really don't understand it myself. I had a lot of books I cared about (and other stuff) and lost it all in a fire. I was gutted about it but after that never really cared about books again. I now have several bookcases full of books and quite a few others scattered around the house. In a perfect world they would convert themselves to ebooks. If they all disappeared tomorrow my first thought would be that I had a lot more free space -- Woody
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Jun 2010 17:35 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Once he lost his books, he discovered that he didn't have the same > > relationship with them as he had before - as if perhaps they might > > disappear once again. > > Yes, I can read the words - but I don't gain any meaning from doing so. > > I just don't get what he's on about at all. Saying "I just don't get what he's on about" sounds rude, if it's not meant to be. > I have a relationship with books that cannot be affected in the way > described, and I can't get my head round any sort of relationship with > books that would result in Woody's report. > > I mean, if all my books died in a fire, I'd be mightily pissed off; but > my relationship with them would be unchanged - how else? It hadn't occurred to me until Woody described it, but I can imagine what it might be like to have that relationship changed forever by such a loss. In other contexts, it's quite a familar idea that an event like that can leave one unable to re-make an emotional investment that was wiped out. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Jun 2010 23:39
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > Once he lost his books, he discovered that he didn't have the same > > > relationship with them as he had before - as if perhaps they might > > > disappear once again. > > > > Yes, I can read the words - but I don't gain any meaning from doing so. > > > > I just don't get what he's on about at all. > > Saying "I just don't get what he's on about" sounds rude, if it's not > meant to be. It seems to me like a perfectly normal neutral way of expressing a neutral fact that couldn't possibly be objected to by anyone. What do you think is the rude aspect of it? > > I have a relationship with books that cannot be affected in the way > > described, and I can't get my head round any sort of relationship with > > books that would result in Woody's report. > > > > I mean, if all my books died in a fire, I'd be mightily pissed off; but > > my relationship with them would be unchanged - how else? > > It hadn't occurred to me until Woody described it, but I can imagine > what it might be like to have that relationship changed forever by such > a loss. Bully for you. I can't - care to explain anything about it? > In other contexts, it's quite a familar idea that an event like that can > leave one unable to re-make an emotional investment that was wiped out. Umm. Sorry, what do you mean by *that*? I'm utterly bemused. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |