Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
dyan campbell wrote:
"WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME??"
Have either of you asked that question lately? No, I didn't think so. And that would be why you are neither super-heroes, nor are you friends with the famous Phar Lap. You will never be anything more than Poets, Scientists and other dreary things that don't inspire great things.This is a deeply insightful observation, Dyan -- comparable, I think, with the work of the great philosophers at the peak of their powers. In future, when people ask me "whatever happened the René Descartes of yesteryear?" and similar such questions, I shall simply direct them to Auckland, Dyan Campbell's house.
-
A very belated reply to the awe-inspiring comments on this thread. I have been prevented from my usual sneaks at PA by the HP Touch advert (with the hand) that freaks out Bob-the-Boy: "Where's the rest of the person, Daddy? [Lip trembling] I don't like this video! We have to watch something else now!"
Stewart wrote:
It was the Martha Longhurst part that did it for me.
(old bloke with a long memory...)I'm so delighted that someone else remembers... I'm sure Martha would've been pleased, too.
Likewise I was hugely entertained by the comments of Ian MacKay, Ian Dalziel and dyan campbell. And needless to say that I am always in awe of the mindboggling and limerickaliciously talented Philip Challinor.
Ross Mason wrote:
[RE: 'Leaving on a Jet Plane']
I think is was probably more likely to be Jackson Brown's "Running on Empty".
Good point! I was thinking of the fact that John Denver wrote 'Leaving on a Jet Plane' for Peter, Paul, and Mary -- er, probably a bit obscure in retrospect. Also very interesting that, as you point out, Martha Longhurst has accurately predicted the major policy goals of the current government. Spooky doesn't begin to describe it.
Russell Brown wrote:
I think a regular column of "Paula's Tips" would be very well received.
An intriguing suggestion! I shall see what I can do...
-
Originally written on March 29th 2010, but held back to allow readers to forget the excellence of Emma Hart's piece on the same subject (written on that same day).
I had decided not to run it at all, but then realized how keen many people would be to find out what Phar Lap has been up to since his retirement.
-
andin wrote:
David I must also apologise for my first grumpy post. Sorry.
Crikey, no apology necessary! I wasn't offended at all. Although now I shall have to go back and check whether I should've been! [Checks] No... phew!
I would much rather you gave the credit for all those good things to the people who perform them. Crediting it to that vague spectre religion does them a disservice. Tho' they may credit their particular faith, Im sure they would really get a kick out of a personal thanks at the time.
It's rather unknowable, isn't it? Certainly I've met people who claim that religion provides them with a moral code that they are unable to find elsewhere -- and that, in some cases, this has enabled them to change (for the good) as people. But , of course, as you point out, it's always polite to thank people rather than their faith!
I've been having this same discussion by email with a couple of PA readers. One of them writes:
I believe in pretty much the same values and behaviour as mainstream Christianity, but without the prize of going to heaven, or the fear of going to hell if I don't. How magnanamous is that!
... which is an interesting point.
-
chris wrote:
'The Problem with Religion' works because
1. It is very funny
2 It is a popularized stance.
if this were an attack on feminism thinly veiled under the title 'The Problem with -isms', or an attack on homosexuality titled 'The Problem with Sexuality', all hell would break loose.Many thanks for your thoughtful comments, Chris. May I politely disagree with your point 2 (above).
I think it's the opposite of why the humour (hopefully) works. Religious belief is far and away the majority/power-holder position in the world; and humour tends to be a good tool when directed against the majority/power-holders. Poking fun at minorities/disempowered (feminists or homosexuals in your example) just isn't as funny -- or, at least, not to me.
In this piece I was attempting to use the word 'loud' as a metaphor (or do I mean metonym?) for the all-pervasiveness of religion in the world. If you're not religious, as I'm not, it's very easy to become downhearted by the 'loudness' of the hatred and intolerance, the horror of the hypocrisy and scandals (see Brendan Smyth, Graham Capill, etc.), and all the other 'bad' bits of religion.
Sometimes it requires an effort to stand back and remind myself that religion does also (much more quietly) do many good things for society -- as listed in the penultimate paragraph of the essay, which plays on the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).
This is just my perspective as a non-religious person; as a religious person you will, no doubt, see these thing from an entirely different angle.
-
andin wrote:
Um solar water heaters......?
Sorry Andin, just catching up on reading this thread...
I don't want to de-rail an interesting discussion here, but to quickly reply to your question (and given that I can't email you privately!):
1. I'm no longer an energy engineer, so it's been a few years since I last looked at solar water heating.
2. But there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with solar collectors based on evacuated glass tubes. Glass has advantages compared to other materials in terms of corrosion resistance and cost (especially given the current price of copper).
3. Having said that, the performance of individual models and makes (of evacuated tube collector) will vary enormously.
4. A good way of evaluating systems is in terms of net cost per Joule (or kWh):
(a) Find out the expected solar incidence for your house & installation orientation.
(b) Work out the energy that would be collected by the various alternative systems under the constraints of house/installation orientation, and over the expected lifetime of the systems (if you're expecting to move house any time soon then you should use this instead of expected lifetime).
(c) In each case, work out the gross lifetime savings that this would provide in comparison to water heating using your current system, i.e. using the cost per Joule (or Kwh) for your current system (you'll have to do some guessing at future cost, of course).
(d) Subtract the installation cost of the systems to get the net lifetime savings.
(e) How do the net lifetime savings compare to simply leaving the installation cost in the bank over the lifetime of the system?5. Chances are, given that NZers typically buy a new house every five years or so, that no solar water heater system will pay back over that time (unless you have numerous teenage children). In which case you need only compare the net lifetime savings of the systems with one another.
6. Even if there are no compelling financial reasons for yourself as an individual to install solar water heating, you may well consider that there are moral reasons. Remember that apart from HWC wraps and CFL lightbulbs, almost no energy-efficiency system is financially worth implementing for an individual under a typical NZ scenario. The most cost-effective system for an individual is to live in an uninsulated and unheated house and to take two-minute showers, i.e. the usual NZ housing philosophy. Of course, this isn't cheaper for society as a whole, which is why governments have introduced (admittedly fairly minimal) standards for new housing.
Hope this is helpful...
P.S. If you're in CHCH the Thermocell system may well be worth looking at. I know they've had systems installed for 25 years with no problems, and by using a flat-plate heat-pipe they should be able to keep their costs down. Also NZ made, of course. Disclosure: the inventor of this system was on the examining committee for my Ph.D.
-
Glad you liked it, Jeffrey. Although I should correct you that my Granddad was an anarchist, not a Marxist! Seventeen years ago that mistake would have cost you a two-hour lecture on the subject.
And thank you also, Mike Hollywood, for your fascinating information on the evolution of the Celtic/Rangers divide. My mum (a Glaswegian) is a Celtic supporter purely on the basis of their inclusive employment policy -- although I don't think she exactly follows the games these days.
-
Some quick replies before I am conscripted into helping my son with his excavations in the garden...
Deborah wrote:
I rather like Christians. However I've only ever met a very few of them.
Oh, touché.
Joe Wylie wrote:
Pinocchio being a thin knock-off of Jesus, right down to having holes in his hands and feet.
A very perceptive observation... could this be one for the copyright thread?
Kyle Matthews wrote:
I haven't read much of the bible at all. How many sections make Jesus look like a Catholic priest trolling for nookie?
I can set your mind at ease on that one. It only looks bad because the excerpt doesn't mention that Jesus was just a wee lad himself at that time. Phew.
giovanni tiso wrote:
[quoting David Haywood:]
> Thus when the Mormons knock on my door
> while I'm watching Top GearWow, they really are trying to save you! From a twat rather than Satan, admittedly, but that's some good saving.
I think Jeremy Clarkson is a world-class fuckwit, and yet still I am compelled to watch. I can offer no excuse. Perhaps this is why I have come to see the good in others, despite their strange beliefs. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that.
Relating to your observations about coming to NZ. One of my colleagues had some interesting comments about coming here from (Catholic) Bavaria. To paraphrase: there I was boringly ordinary; here I am special. Nice to be able to experience that perspective.
-
Rich Lock wrote:
The gospel which your Grandfather refers to is probably either the 'Infancy gospel of Thomas, or the Syriac Infancy gospel.
Oh, how I have misjudged my grandfather!
But wow, no wonder they decides to leave the 'Infancy gospel of Thomas' out of the official version. Killing a couple of other children and making the neighbours go blind is a pretty bad marketing move for the concept of Jesus as a nice guy. It'd make a good horror movie, though.
And maximum respect for your Googling skills, matey. I tried to find any reference to the goats trick when I was writing the piece -- and had no luck.
-
Andin wrote:
Balance? How do you know the scales are tipped in such a way that you must be polite?
Dude, I think I explained this by my words later in that same paragraph:
"I do not greet them with icy rejection... because I know they've had icy rejection from every other house in the street, and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for them."
Andin wrote:
[Quoting David Haywood]
> Of course, it's not very nice to poke fun at
> sincerely-held religious beliefsSo if a person sincerely believes inoculation causes mental problems in kids? Dont poke fun?
Possibly you have to consider these words in the context of a piece in which I've spent the entire time poking fun at sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Accommodationist.
If by 'accommodationist' you mean letting people do and believe what they want (so long as it doesn't do harm to others), and pointing out (despite the depressing headlines and general silliness of religion) that many religious people are also good people -- then, y'know, call me a hotelier.
But nice work on remembering that second 'm' in 'accommodationist', dude -- it is so frequently forgotten.