|
Post by ahinton on Dec 9, 2013 8:40:41 GMT -5
Do you not see a problem at all with Qantas then, ahinton? I thought that I had just made clear that I know insufficient of the subject to be qualified to say one way or the other. The reason for my involvement in this discussion has been - as should also be clear from what I've contributed to it - as a result of the arguments put forward in it about "property" and the like of which, in case they might be regarded as off-topic, I can say only that they were introduced by the initiator of the thread rather than by me personally and all that I have sought to do thereafter is repond to them as best I can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 9:23:03 GMT -5
Do you therefore think that the state should finance your travel, Gerard? PS Plenty of travel is state-financed. When, for example, I work for a government, the state effectively finances my travel. Whether the state should run the transportation system is an interesting question. The state clearly has a role in creating the infrastructure by which I can get from a to b, so if I am flying from London to Sydney, for example, I need to find an airport which I can use. Pertinently, ' The London Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment on a lean state. ' The Thunderer' concludes that spending on public services is falling because expenditure on interest and welfare is too high. Osborne must reinvent the State. The right wing perspective, as championed for example by ' The Times', is a small state; the left wing perspective, as championed for example by ' The Guardian', is a big state. I would be tempted by whatever works better. A journey to Sydney is an obvious example. I go to an airport and get on a flight, ahinton.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 9, 2013 11:11:44 GMT -5
Do you therefore think that the state should finance your travel, Gerard? Whether or not he does think that it should and indeed whether or not it already does finance all or part of it and, if not, might be prepared to consider doing so, the question would surely still be left open as to whether some or all of that travel be made on transport provided by private companies, n'est-ce pas?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 10, 2013 7:36:16 GMT -5
Do you therefore think that the state should finance your travel, Gerard? Travel is one thing; money quite another. There is no obvious connection. We have all heard of " Liberté, égalité, fraternité" have not we? But the French there with " égalité" meant that every one should be treated equally in elections; I do not agree with that at all. The form of égalité I would urge is that every one should have equal opportunities. So, once kleines c has had his trip, he would not be allowed to go there again until all the little old ladies have had their turn - or at least have been asked whether they wanted to. And since, given the likely paucity of volunteer pilots, it is unlikely that the number of seats available will be more than a few thousand per week, that could take some time. The problem is no more than a temporary one, though. After a few hundred years pilots will no longer be required, and it will be possible easily to construct as many flying-machines (or more advanced means of transport) as required.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 10, 2013 8:51:12 GMT -5
Do you therefore think that the state should finance your travel, Gerard? Travel is one thing; money quite another. There is no obvious connection. Of course there is. Travel costs the traveller money. People intending to travel need first to purchase tickets for air, train or coach travel and travel in taxis and private hire vehicles has also to be paid for. Travel also costs the supplier money - vehicles, fuel, maintenance, marketing, administration and many other things. We have all heard of " Liberté, égalité, fraternité" have not we? But the French there with " égalité" meant that every one should be treated equally in elections; I do not agree with that at all. The form of égalité I would urge is that every one should have equal opportunities. With this I do wholeheartedly agree. So, once kleines c has had his trip, he would not be allowed to go there again until all the little old ladies have had their turn - or at least have been asked whether they wanted to. And since, given the likely paucity of volunteer pilots, it is unlikely that the number of seats available will be more than a few thousand per week, that could take some time. That's utter nonsense! It would mean that no one could commute regularly on public transport of any kind! The problem is no more than a temporary one, though. After a few hundred years pilots will no longer be required, and it will be possible easily to construct as many flying-machines (or more advanced means of transport) as required. A few hundred years is a very long time. There are already unmanned drones, as we all know to our cost; driverless road vehicles are not so very far off and driverless trains also exist. That's hardly the point, however, as all such transporation vehicles will cost money to make, distribute, sell, operate and maintain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 8:52:20 GMT -5
This all comes down to the allocation of resources, Gerard! There is a Qantas flight departing from London to Sydney this afternoon. Who should be allocated a seat? Well, the little old lady who is visiting her Australian grandchildren for Christmas could get one! Qantas - Flights to SydneyI have other plans for Christmas, Gerard, so I am more than happy for her to go. The more difficult question is who pays perhaps a thousand pounds for the journey? Well, I would argue that the little old lady should pay for her own seat, although she might well get the money from the state anyway. The obvious connection between travel and money is that travel costs money, as ahinton points out independently above. So rather than fly to Sydney this afternoon, I shall walk to Somerset House instead. This evening (promptly at 21:00 GMT on Tuesday 10 December 2013), everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to join us for fish and chips. Channel 4 - Heston's Great British Food - Episode 1 - Fish and Chips I have been trying to track down the first fish and chip shop in the world, but it no longer exists! Writing in ' The Observer', the food critic Jay Rayner once claimed fish and chips for the Jews. You might think it wiser to attempt to claim, say, Jewish food in Britain for the Jews rather than fish and chips, but Jay was nothing if not ambitious. The Observer - Enduring love: the great British chippie is all thanks to sixteenth-century Jewish immigrants, says Jay RaynerAfterwards, how about a skate, champagne and chocolate?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 10, 2013 12:28:57 GMT -5
So rather than fly to Sydney this afternoon, I shall reply to him instead, it would seem! But to return to the thread topic, perhaps we're dealing with the unknown (and maybe unknowable) Qantaty here? Qantas's problems such as they may or may not be and all the proto-sociocommunist expressions that have surfaced in this thread as an apparent consequence of an intended discussion thereof are and must be recognised as two separate entities as far as subject matter goes; the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two - one dealing with the current state of Qantas and another addressing the said sociocommunist ideas to which passing reference has been made here. That might at least reduce the risk of confusion and confused woolly thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 3:56:11 GMT -5
Good morning to you all, once again! To all those who survived the night, and kleines c's fish and chips, what a night it turned out to be. Congratulations to all! Writing in ' The Independent', Ellen E Jones enjoys a fish supper with a twist as Heston cooks up a classic. After years of trial and error, of sourcing rare ingredients and studying the results at a molecular level, Heston Blumenthal has finally come up with his most perfect recipe yet – for a TV cookery show, that is. Heston's Great British Food, began its first series on Channel 4 last night and was a delightful combination of everything Blumenthal does best: culinary history, edible pranks and memorable theatrics. Ellen concludes thus: Channel 4 - Heston's Great British Food - Fish and ChipsAfterwards, the skate, champagne and chocolate were even better! Congratulations to all! If I may nevertheless address all four of your final points directly, ahinton: So rather than fly to Sydney this afternoon, I shall a. reply to him instead, it would seem!It seems so, ahinton. b. But to return to the thread topic, perhaps we're dealing with the unknown (and maybe unknowable) Qantaty here? On the contrary, ahinton, Qantas is both known and knowable, if only by reading this thread. c. Qantas's problems such as they may or may not be and all the proto-sociocommunist expressions that have surfaced in this thread as an apparent consequence of an intended discussion thereof are and must be recognised as two separate entities as far as subject matter goes; the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two - one dealing with the current state of Qantas and another addressing the said sociocommunist ideas to which passing reference has been made here. As an Administrator, I could split this thread into two, but it makes no sense for me to do so. Let me explain. Qantas has a real problem. The discussion seeks to identify the real nature of Qantas's problem. d. That might at least reduce the risk of confusion and confused woolly thinking. On the contrary, without a concrete example, I would judge that confused woolly thinking is likely to increase. On this basis, we shall not therefore split Gerard's original thread, although you are more than welcome to start a new thread as you see fit, ahinton. I would not know what to call it!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 11, 2013 5:11:29 GMT -5
If I may nevertheless address all four of your final points directly, ahinton: ... Qantas is both known and knowable, if only by reading this thread. Oh, Qantas itself is known and knaowable all right - as may be its current problems to anyone who has looked into the matter - but it was not that to which I referred which was instead the almost immediate veering off-topic to matters of money, sociocommunistical (if I may adumbrate a Grewism - just for fun, you understand! - I hasten to assure you that I'm not about to start making a habit of this!) ideas of increasingly bizarre untenability and the rest, of which none did or indeed could throw any light on the plight of Qantas, let alone anaylse it and perhaps offer som possible solutions thereto. As an Administrator, I could split this thread into two, but it makes no sense for me to do so. Let me explain. Qantas has a real problem. The discussion seeks to identify the real nature of Qantas's problem. OK, but whilst it may ostensibly seek to do so in principle, it departed from that topic almost before the first fence with distracting pseudo-Utopian fantasies about money and those socio-thingummybobs, not to mention absurd ideas about how to ration the travel plans of each individual in the name of some kind of artifically constructed "equality" - and, if I may say so, even you have given us a report of our 3-Michelin-starred wonder's experimental fish and chips programme which, interesting as indeed it is, appears likewise to have scant, if any, direct connetion with the problems of/at Qantas (it's not even as though Mr Blumenthal was doing his stuff in Australia!). d. That might at least reduce the risk of confusion and confused woolly thinking. On the contrary, without a concrete example, I would judge that confused woolly thinking is likely to increase. On this basis, we shall not therefore split Gerard's original thread, although you are more than welcome to start a new thread as you see fit, ahinton. I would not know what to call it! I would not know why I might start a new thread or indeed why there would be any need for me or anyone else to do so; all that's required and/or expected is that this one actually addresses the topic, which it has hardly yet begun to do and not even the mere unhelpfully predictive suggestion that in a few hundred years' time no pilots will be required provides any solution to Qantas's problems by that time, let alone addresses them as they are now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 6:04:28 GMT -5
On the contrary, I have already addressed the real problem of Qantas in considerable detail. If you wish me to split Gerard's thread, ahinton, what would you like the two new threads to be called?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 11, 2013 6:12:54 GMT -5
Travel costs the traveller money. Not necessarily. That is only a presumption of those who have money on the brain. Not necessarily. We doubt Mr. Blair very often does, for instance. It may do but it ought not. Perhaps the supplier should gather him- or herself together. Why ever not? Given sufficient omnibuses and taxi-meter cabs where is the problem? One example of many around the world is provided by the Pyong Yang system.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 11, 2013 7:16:18 GMT -5
On the contrary, I have already addressed the real problem of Qantas in considerable detail. If you wish me to split Gerard's thread, ahinton, what would you like the two new threads to be called? There's been precious little discussion of the problem, though. It's not up to me to suggest the splitting of the thread, but if people have input about Qantas and its problems and their possible solutions then this is the place for it and if others wish to discuss sociocommunicado matters then one person who does so should start an new thread for that purpose. That my two cents' worth, anyway (if it's OK to mention money here!)...
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 11, 2013 7:33:43 GMT -5
Travel costs the traveller money. Not necessarily. That is only a presumption of those who have money on the brain. Really? Then might you care to explain how someone intending to travel using some kind of public or transportation facility can do so without money first being used to pay for the journey - apart, that is, from fare cheating? People intending to travel need first to purchase tickets. Not necessarily. We doubt Mr. Blair very often does, for instance. Fair comment insofar as it goes (apart from an unnecessary and gratuitous mention of this person - indeed, can there be any other kind of mention of him?), but you are merely splitting hairs here; someone has to purchase the travel tickets on the traveller's behalf if the traveller does not do so on his/her own behalf - and that, of course, costs money. Travel also costs the supplier money. It may do but it ought not. There's no "may" about it; it does do, in all cases. There's no such thing as a free lunch either (as the saying goes). Why "ought" it now to do so and how could it not do so? Perhaps the supplier should gather him- or herself together. What does that mean? Most suppliers are not individuals but companies who purchase or lease the vehicles that they use and pay to maintain and operate them for the benefit of those who pay to travel on them. How else could this work? What "gathering together" of what or whom and in what way could make any difference to the commercial and practical reality that no one can operate any public or private transport without investment of money therein? Why ever not? Given sufficient omnibuses and taxi-meter cabs where is the problem? One example of many around the world is provided by the Pyong Yang system. There isn't a "problem"; I did not suggest that there was or is a "problem". The fact remains, however, that buses (not "omnibuses", since by no means everyone travels on them or indeed wants to do so and not everyone has a bus service near them that they could use in any case if they might otherwise want to do so) and taxi cabs have to be designed, manufactured, marketed, sold / purchased, maintained and operated with whatever fuel they use; the same goes for coaches, trains, planes and any other means of public transportation just as it does for cars, motorcycles and other means of private transportation. None of this is possible without initial investments of money and then exchanges of more money at each sttage in the process. Leaving aside the fact that the rest of the world is hardly like to want to take a lead from what happens about anything in Pyongyang, what makes you appear to believe that the public transport services provided there do not cost their providers money? Anyway, to return to the subject(!), Qantas does not fly to N Korea and I somehow doubt that its launching of a new service between any Australian city and Pyongyang would solve any problems that curently beset it - indeed, if anything, it would add to those problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 7:54:38 GMT -5
But you just did suggest that the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two, ahinton! If I may quote you directly: " ... the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two - one dealing with the current state of Qantas and another addressing the said sociocommunist ideas to which passing reference has been made here. That might at least reduce the risk of confusion and confused woolly thinking." It self-evidently was entirely up to you, ahinton, to suggest the splitting of the thread. We are only discussing the splitting of this particular thread because you suggested the splitting of the thread!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 11, 2013 8:10:59 GMT -5
But you just did suggest that the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two, ahinton! If I may quote you directly: " ... the thread should perhaps therefore be split into two - one dealing with the current state of Qantas and another addressing the said sociocommunist ideas to which passing reference has been made here. That might at least reduce the risk of confusion and confused woolly thinking." It self-evidently was entirely up to you, ahinton, to suggest the splitting of the thread. We are only discussing the splitting of this particular thread because you suggested the splitting of the thread! Perhaps I should make myelf clearer than evidently I did previously and I offer due apology for the lack of clarity in my earlier post. Yes, I do believe that two entirely different topics would better and more sensibly discussed in two threads, one devoted to each but it is not up to me to split a thread or tell anyone to do it because I am not a moderator nor an administrator here. As I mentioned, if someone has sufficient interest in the distracting subject matter that has pervaded this thread, it is up to that person to start a new one on the subject concerned and leave this one intact for discussion of Qantas and its problems. If that someone does exactly that, you, as an administrator of the forum, reserve the right (that I as a mere lowly member thereof do not) to move any distracting posts in this thread to the new one as you may deem appropriate. That's all!
|
|