Re: Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
>>> those things.
>> If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.
>
> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.

'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and
be good at things.

>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>> postgrad.
>
> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them have
> far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your skills
> are to postgrad level?
>

Councillors are elected local politicians. In the examples I gave they
had more current technical detail knowledge than me (although more than
that required for the module) - and I write and teach nationally to PG
level. They're not quite so hot on the evaluation though ;-)

>> My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean anything - and I
>> have daily reminders.
>
> Hmm... It seems to me that you are totally cynical about your own job. Not a
> very good advert for your own skills are you?

Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they
are, and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good
at what I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications. Neither is it in
spite - the *process* of education can be illuminating as well.

>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>> David.
>>>
>> Could be ;-)
>>
>
> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
> replying.
>

If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> David Looser wrote:
> > "Rob" > wrote in message


> >>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class. David.
> >>>
> >> Could be ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have
> > bothered replying.
> >

> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)

Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is likely
to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain your
views, or just 'win an argument'?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> David Looser wrote:
>>
>> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
>> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
>
> 'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and be
> good at things.

No, but they do help demonstrate to others that you are "good at things".
And *if* you are "good at things" then it's no great effort to acquire the
qualification that will allow you to do that.

>>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>>> postgrad.
>>
>> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
>> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them
>> have far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your
>> skills are to postgrad level?
>>
>
> Councillors are elected local politicians.

Ah, at last you are giving an answer to one of the question that I asked a
couple of posts back. But you still haven't answered the question as to
*what* are these "technical skills" that they are so good at, or indeed what
"field" you are in. And what is the relevance of the fact that these people
are councillors?

> In the examples I gave they had more current technical detail knowledge
> than me (although more than that required for the module) - and I write
> and teach nationally to PG level. They're not quite so hot on the
> evaluation though ;-)

Again, what "current technical detail knowledge" are we talking about? And
what are you teaching them?, indeed why are you teaching them?
>
> Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they are,
> and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good at what
> I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications.

So what do you do?

And of course you aren't good at what you do *because* of your
qualifications - what an absurd thing to say. You are qualified in what you
do because you are good at it, not the other way about.

>
>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>>>
>>> Could be ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
>> replying.
>>
>
> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>

If that's what you think I have been arguing all this time then you haven't
read my posts. My point about "not bothering" is that, unlike you
apparently, I do not see a connection between being "unqualified" and being
"working class". If you want to indulge in inverted class snobbery be my
guest, but I'm not interested.

David.

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Rob
> > wrote:
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class. David.
>>>>>
>>>> Could be ;-)
>>>>
>>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have
>>> bothered replying.
>>>

To return to this point for a moment - class is a perfectly reasonable
aspect of analysis.

>
>> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
>> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>
> Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is likely
> to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain your
> views, or just 'win an argument'?
>

It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama. I wouldn't for one moment
assume David is uncritically accepting of a 'qualified person' in all
circumstances. Just more than healthy.

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
>>> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
>> 'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and be
>> good at things.
>
> No, but they do help demonstrate to others that you are "good at things".
> And *if* you are "good at things" then it's no great effort to acquire the
> qualification that will allow you to do that.
>

But why should you bother? To get the job, status, pay, professional
accountability etc - not necessarily to do the job any better.

>>>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>>>> postgrad.
>>> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
>>> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them
>>> have far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your
>>> skills are to postgrad level?
>>>
>> Councillors are elected local politicians.
>
> Ah, at last you are giving an answer to one of the question that I asked a
> couple of posts back. But you still haven't answered the question as to
> *what* are these "technical skills" that they are so good at, or indeed what
> "field" you are in. And what is the relevance of the fact that these people
> are councillors?
>

Relevance - none. Actual skills. The particular field I have in mind is
social housing finance and the maintenance of local authority accounts.
There's a heap of CIPFA guidance/protocols I know very little about -
they seemed to know it pretty well.

My field is social policy. My specialism is social housing, and then
within that housing finance.

>> In the examples I gave they had more current technical detail knowledge
>> than me (although more than that required for the module) - and I write
>> and teach nationally to PG level. They're not quite so hot on the
>> evaluation though ;-)
>
> Again, what "current technical detail knowledge" are we talking about? And
> what are you teaching them?, indeed why are you teaching them?

I think they were doing the course because they were interested - I
couldn't see any career reasons. Why teach them - because they wanted to
learn. The courses are made up of several modules - law, social policy,
finance, practice and so on.

>> Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they are,
>> and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good at what
>> I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications.
>
> So what do you do?
>

Teacher/researcher. And I'd say my teaching qualification was not the
most enlightening thing I've ever done. Unless something subliminal went
on, it taught me nothing.

> And of course you aren't good at what you do *because* of your
> qualifications - what an absurd thing to say. You are qualified in what you
> do because you are good at it, not the other way about.
>
>>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>>>>
>>>> Could be ;-)
>>>>
>>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
>>> replying.
>>>
>> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
>> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>>
>
> If that's what you think I have been arguing all this time then you haven't
> read my posts.

It was slightly tongue in cheek.

My point about "not bothering" is that, unlike you
> apparently, I do not see a connection between being "unqualified" and being
> "working class". If you want to indulge in inverted class snobbery be my
> guest, but I'm not interested.
>

Not sure where you got that link from. Anything in the social world
could be about class - plenty of theories knocking about stating thus.
You asked - I just said 'could be'.

Rob

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is
>> likely
>> to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain
>> your
>> views, or just 'win an argument'?
>>
>
> It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama.

Nope, it was a straw-man argument, pure and simple. You set up a strawman -
someone who is "dazzled" by qualifications (which is about as far removed
from my own POV as you can get) - simply so that you can knock it down.

> I wouldn't for one moment assume David is uncritically accepting of a
> 'qualified person' in all circumstances. Just more than healthy.
>
Which again shows that you are reading what you want (or expect) to read
from my posts, rather than what I have written.

In no way am I "dazzled" by qualifications. I joined in this thread because
I do not believe that there are masses of unqualified (and thus untrained,
because training leads to qualifications) scientists and engineers out there
who can do science and engineering better than the people who have taken the
trouble to get a bit of education first. Which was more-or-less the original
claim.

In the field I now discover (at long last!) you have been talking about it
may very well be true that there are a lot of unqualified people who can do
the job better than the qualified. But this is an audio ng, and housing
policy seems rather off-topic.

David.