Polite-off

This post is about warcraft - but it's mostly about that strange species - The English.

Imagine, if you will, 11 people gathered for a weekend activity. All with shared interests, most on at least nodding terms. Even three couples - some married!

But into this garden of joy slithers the snake of circumstance - only 10 can play. And it's three hours or more a go.

In some cultures people would argue for their right to go, based on need, merit, superiority or just being on time.

Not so here...

Of the 11 players, 4 apologised for being unable to give way. They all had essential roles. Be this tank, healer or the only disenchanter - all had to go, for the good of the raid. They were essential.

Of the remaining 7, 6 offered to give up their place. Some stated they had been late. Others claimed to have not eaten yet and that playing with a keyboard and fork was a bad idea for all. Another said she had other things that needed to be done.

All the players bar one were perfectly willing to sit out, to be polite and put their interests aside. A polite off - like a stand off, but much more English.

"After you."
"No, after you."
"Please - you first."
"No, I wouldn't dream of it."

But what of the 11th person you ask. Was he brash, bold and insisting he should go?

Nope - he wasn't at his keyboard - and apologised later.
--

Edit to add:

It's been pointed out to me that the cause of this whole episode was me changing plans and turning up that night. Where as previously I was scheduled to be elsewhere...

So I should stress that ultimately they were all willing to give up that nights run for Me - someone that only 2 of them have ever met in person.

You've got to go a long way to find a bunch of people that friendly.

You probably missed this one

One of the (many) problems with only watching news broadcasts by the like of the BBC, Channel 4, Sky and the like is that sometimes they miss things.

One thing they've missed is this speech - it's an attack on Gorden Brown by a Member of the European Parliament. And it's great.

There's a lot you can't do in the Commons. It's ruled by convention - you can't attack someone directly - you have to go through the Speaker. You can't just attack the prime minister at Prime Minister's Questions - you have to phrase it around a question. A short-ish one at that.

And in the Commons the victim of your attack gets to reply - well, pretend to reply. As is far to often the case it is a "duck and weave", anything but answer the question actually asked and admit you might have got something wrong.

I'd respect Gorden Brown a little if he actually answered. Well, a little.

But it's rare - so very rare - that someone stands up to say exactly what they want - representing the views of their constituents - and sits back down again.

So sit back and enjoy this one....

A stapler.

How many IT people does it take to fix a stapler?

Not a question asked on a daily basis, but an important one that was addressed today.

The answer was both enlightening and disturbing in equal measures.

It took three to determine that the correct action was to replace it. That the little bit of metal that came spinning out of it couldn’t be put back in. So yes – there is sanity in IT. It takes three, but it can be found.

It also takes three to take that slither of metal and absolutely destroy the stapler and the metal shard in attempts to repair it using whatever tools came to hand.

Screwdrivers. The desk. Anything in reach.

And we trust these people with servers costing thousands.

*Gulp*

Why I rant...

I've been asked why I don't get on with, and why I occasionally rant about women and feminists.

The answer is - purely - they usually deserve it. I find what they say infuriating, along with the refusal to debate and the personal attacks they make to be hugely aggravating.

Disagree and you become a misogynist - and things go downhill from there.

But why do they deserve it? They say things like this...

Women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than either new technology or the emerging markets of China and India

This just takes my breath away. More to the economy then technological improvement.

So women have contributed more then the economic value of agriculture? Or the ability to make fire?

Both of those are "new technologies" - without which we'd still be stuck in caves. True, I'm being a little silly there. Let's stick to new technologies within her lifetime.

How about advances in computing and electronics in the last 54 years - since she was born. I've got more computing power in my desktop then existed in the world for about half that time.

Put together.

That is part of what I find infuriating - they say silly things like that and expect you to accept it.
--

(I'm not going to go into the question of "Why didn't she directly compare the economic growth of men and women? Why cherry pick this part of the market....or that part of the market...not a useful overall comparison?)

Decisions

I'm terrible at making decisions.

You lot know this. So I'm looking at a choice - no bonus points for guessing what it is.

I've looked into the options - attempting my usual method of problem solving. That is - understand the problem. Eliminate the impossible and the downright silly.

Once you've done this there's rarely more than an option left. Or, if there are several options there's usually one clear and certain optimal solution.

I'll be damned if I can see it.

How to tell you are getting old

You have a quiet weekend coming - last weekend, for argument's sake.

Instead of a wild party, with dancing girls, loud music and far to much alcohol - aka, a lot of fun - instead you choose to go shopping.

You buy some decent cheese, the bits needed for a nice Caesar salad, some good bread....and a cadburys cream egg. All to eat in the garden, to the sound of the wind....

What kind of sane person would rather have a decent lunch in sunshine over a party?

An old(er) one.

Why I can't stand Harriet Harman

Meet Harriet. She's a labour party member, politician - and that's as far as I can go in my description. After this I start using offensive names.

Why do I dislike her so much? Well, she is...


-Minister for women
-Minister for women and Equality
-Deputy leader of the labour party
-Party chair of the labour party
-Leader of the House of Commons

Yes, you read that right - she's twice the minister for women. I could say about the logical insanity of a "Minister for (subgroup) and Everyone else" but I'm not going to. I'll be good and not say "Why isn't there a minister for men".

Today I want to look at what she said.

In the Times, on Jan 25:

Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “There is a major fear about women being targeted by their employers during the downturn. This is unlawful.” Another senior minister said women could be set back for “a generation”.

The latest official employment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter, compared with a fall of 36,000 for men. It means women are losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men, because men significantly outnumber women in the workplace.

That seems fair enough. Except that in the Telegraph on the 7th of March

The Office for National Statistics published new data showing that fewer female workers were sacked at the end of last year than male staff, most likely because more of them have jobs in the public sector.

Its figures come just two days after the Government launched a new campaign specifically to help women cope with the effects of the downturn, along with a survey claiming that they are more worried about the economy than men.

Harriet Harman, the Women's Minister, said: "We cannot and will not allow women to become the victims of this recession."

And this is why I reserve a special place in my heart for Harriet - with the whips, chains and nails.

Because she doesn't care about anyone but her Chosen Group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're in a bit of a recession. People are loosing jobs. Companies are folding.

But her chosen group must be protected from harm. Except that it turns out they're relatively unaffected. But has Harperson apologised? Has she announced that if companies fire proportionately more men will suffer legal action? An apology?

Of course not. Because Harriet doesn't care.

What was that? Legal action? Here, have a look, from the times, same article...

The government is to work with the EHRC to monitor businesses for evidence of discrimination over redundancies. Companies found to have unjustifiable discrepancies between male and female redundancy rates are being warned they face court.

Yep, us evil men have to be watched, monitored and sued if we fire more women. So not only does she not care about men - she believes we would deliberately act against women - as a group - given the chance.

It's got to the point where the moment she opens her mouth I disbelieve her. A new bill for equality? Look hard for a moment and you find it allows positive discrimination.

It wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't constantly on the news right now. But every time I see her the rage slowly grows...

Is a little fairness to much to ask for?

Or failing that, how about a week of peace?