MacBook back-up necessity
in [UK Mac]
|
From: D.M. Procida on 30 Jun 2010 02:43 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > 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? If I were describing my feelings about losing something that mattered to me, and someone said that they didn't get what I was on about, I'd be a bit taken aback. > > 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. There are lots of things people will never understand about each other. Even I, a powerful and effortless empath with a score of eight - *eight*! - on the official UCSM autistic spectrum diagnostic tool, don't quite get some things. Daniele
From: Woody on 30 Jun 2010 03:09 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: > > > > > >> 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. > > I don't believe you. I think you ask me things like that to wind me up. Suit yourself, I have no way to prove it. > > >>>>> 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, > > Actually, I think you'll find it was more me berating you for sneering > at me for not getting the joke - which happened simply because you > failed to flag something as humour which was not obviously humour. Not obvious to you as humour. Other people saw it as humour, so it was obvious to them. > That's the usual reason, not the warped explanation you give. > > > I didn't notice, sorry. > > Oi vey! > > Look, `does not compute' is obviously humorous in the above context, > because it cannot be made to make sense when applied as a concept to the > business in hand. No. It is not even slightly obvious. > Isn't it? > > I mean, yeah, if I had thought there was any significant risk of my lack > of total seriousness being noticed, I would have put a smiley in. which was my point the previous time I mentioned. > > > 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. > > Erm, what? - oh, I see, you're talking about the burnt to death books. yes. > I see - yeah, well, your reaction is something very odd to my mind, very > very odd indeed. Something about the way you look at the world is - as > I'm sure you've noticed by now - radically different to the way I look > at the world. I think that much is true! > The way I work things out, if I can find out something useful about your > response to the burning of the books, then I would gain a significantly > useful addition to my understanding of people in general in a fashion > which would me of great practical benefit to me in my daily life. > > And *that* is why I want to know - understanding you personally in this > respect isn't really the point, it's just a means to an end. I can see that. Although I don't know how normal this is. > > > 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. > > Erm? Nope, that makes no sense either. > > > > 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. > > Understand what? > > > I had a lot of books I cared about (and other stuff) and lost it > > all in a fire. > > Ah - righto. > > > I was gutted about it but after that never really cared > > about books again. > > Yeah, but: how come? What's going on? I can't feel the process. No clue. > > 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. > > I've never met a way of displaying the content of a book that's as > convenient to use as ink on paper. > > I take it you find no such trouble? Not only no such trouble, apart from certain minor cases such as an appendix in a technical book of a couple of pages as a quick lookup I find them mostly preferable. But then I don't read end to end, and electronic helps with searching. > > If they all disappeared tomorrow my first thought would be that I had a > > lot more free space > > So why keep them? the sheer effort of doing anything about it. It takes no effort to leave them there, where as it would take considerable effort to move them. I still do buy books, I have quite a few I haven't read. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Woody on 30 Jun 2010 03:10 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: > > > 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? > > If I were describing my feelings about losing something that mattered to > me, and someone said that they didn't get what I was on about, I'd be a > bit taken aback. > > > > 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. > > There are lots of things people will never understand about each other. > > Even I, a powerful and effortless empath with a score of eight - > *eight*! - on the official UCSM autistic spectrum diagnostic tool, don't > quite get some things. Maybe we should ask Peter! -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Pd on 30 Jun 2010 05:43 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Even I, a powerful and effortless empath with a score of eight - > > *eight*! - on the official UCSM autistic spectrum diagnostic tool, don't > > quite get some things. > > Maybe we should ask Peter! Which Peter? I tested again, forced myself to do all the questions, twice. First in my "feeling sociable" mindset in which I love people, parties and being a bit disorganised, and second time through in my "shut myself in the office and don't answer the phone and just work" mode. My score varied between 10 and 29. So I display many colours in the spectrum, which is exactly as it should be. Speaking of spectral, I currently sport a multi-coloured eye socket, of which I am inordinately proud. <http://bit.ly/bx0f4G> -- Pd
From: Jim on 30 Jun 2010 05:48
On 2010-06-30, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> > Even I, a powerful and effortless empath with a score of eight - >> > *eight*! - on the official UCSM autistic spectrum diagnostic tool, don't >> > quite get some things. >> >> Maybe we should ask Peter! > > Which Peter? I tested again, forced myself to do all the questions, > twice. First in my "feeling sociable" mindset in which I love people, > parties and being a bit disorganised, and second time through in my > "shut myself in the office and don't answer the phone and just work" > mode. My score varied between 10 and 29. So I display many colours in > the spectrum, which is exactly as it should be. Rather like your trousers. > Speaking of spectral, I currently sport a multi-coloured eye socket, of > which I am inordinately proud. <http://bit.ly/bx0f4G> Ye Gods. What happened there? Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "If you have enough book space, I don't want to talk to you." Terry Pratchett |