It's not what he says but the way he says it, anyway, the only time I see any of his posts is when you guys quote themrockytony67 wrote:All forums need a Tman, he can be a bit brusque but his points make you think, and even if like me you don't agree with them, they are good for debate and getting peoples different views, and at this time of year, at Xmas and pantomime season we all need a villain
Ahh, that's nice...All forums need a Tman, he can be a bit brusque but his points make you think, and even if like me you don't agree with them, they are good for debate and getting peoples different views, and at this time of year, at Xmas and pantomime season we all need a villain
So you say (about every day at the last count), but have you considered how YOU come across?It's not what he says but the way he says it, anyway, the only time I see any of his posts is when you guys quote them
Why break the habit of a lifetime?axeman wrote:yes his slant does make you think but i'll keep my thoughts to myself
Get over yourself. Years ago posties were ofter ex-servicemen or came in by the cadet route, and either way they knew the system and got on with it. Fast forward to now, and the standard of MC staff is embarrasing; many workers don't use English as a first language, or have the aptitude of a log of wood, or want to do as little as possible before running out the door dead on time, or have room temperature IQs, or so elderly/infirm that physical movement seems painful,or so many other gifts so suited to the world of work in RM. If you can identify with this new breed of deadwood ops staff then I can only feel sympathy, but they have nothing in common with long-term RM staff.But why judge people on the job they do that's crazy and creates division. Its not the job that should be judged but the character of the person doing the job, that's why I and others reacted to what you posted. You judged people on the fact that they worked in an MC or worked for Royal Mail and I think that is plain wrong.
hopefully said with tongue in cheek but who knows ?Tman wrote:Get over yourself. Years ago posties were ofter ex-servicemen or came in by the cadet route, and either way they knew the system and got on with it. Fast forward to now, and the standard of MC staff is embarrasing; many workers don't use English as a first language, or have the aptitude of a log of wood, or want to do as little as possible before running out the door dead on time, or have room temperature IQs, or so elderly/infirm that physical movement seems painful,or so many other gifts so suited to the world of work in RM. If you can identify with this new breed of deadwood ops staff then I can only feel sympathy, but they have nothing in common with long-term RM staff.But why judge people on the job they do that's crazy and creates division. Its not the job that should be judged but the character of the person doing the job, that's why I and others reacted to what you posted. You judged people on the fact that they worked in an MC or worked for Royal Mail and I think that is plain wrong.
In answer to your first sentence, that's the hierarchical society we live in, which makes the second sentence arse-about-face too.
it is quite deliberate , a lot of it is to neutralize the unionized influence , there is a lot of embarrassing things that RM like kept down ( if nothing else RM are good at it ) or deliberately ignore . - anyone could make a film with some selective editing like what C4 did with Despatches .baldrick wrote:I hate to agree with him, but I'm afraid that Tman's observations of some newer MC staff does
have an element of truth, but that is down to RM policy, lack of training, and lowering of wages (in real terms)
in the last few years. As in all things, you get what you pay for. :lfo :cfo
BELIAL wrote:Weak; sick ;disabled;disadvantaged;elderly ,don't drag us down we will be the ubermensch
the liberal / middle class PC elite have a lot to answer for , they also tend to be fascistic - too much petty politics and weak empire builders of the worst kind within RM that's why there is a lot of unsuitable staffTman wrote:BELIAL wrote:Weak; sick ;disabled;disadvantaged;elderly ,don't drag us down we will be the ubermensch
So if an employer actually picks staff who are suitable and able to do the job,( as against the unable and unsuitable) it somehow implies Nazism?
Another candidate for the "Top Ten Most Bizarre Comment 2008" list, I think.
- Not quite a debating point but I'll pass it by.Tman wrote:Get over yourself.
- Here you are judging on the Character of the individuals which is what I prefer.Tman wrote:Years ago posties were ofter ex-servicemen or came in by the cadet route, and either way they knew the system and got on with it.
Again you are judging on their characters which if it matches what you said they should be looked down on. But you must have some hard workers and conscientious staff in MCs as we do and I identify myself with in Ops. Your orginal post which I responded to seemed to put people down based on them working for Royal Mail rather than the flaws in their charcter.Tman wrote:Fast forward to now, and the standard of MC staff is embarrasing; many workers don't use English as a first language, or have the aptitude of a log of wood, or want to do as little as possible before running out the door dead on time, or have room temperature IQs, or so elderly/infirm that physical movement seems painful,or so many other gifts so suited to the world of work in RM. If you can identify with this new breed of deadwood ops staff then I can only feel sympathy, but they have nothing in common with long-term RM staff.
Just because society does one thing does not make it right. 30 years racism was rife in society, 60 years ago Feminism was de-rigeur was that right. As to the second sentence surely judging people on their character rather than their jobs is the best way, otherwise we would all be fawning over Allan Leighton and Adam Crozier or even Gordon Brown because their job is far higher in the current hierarchical system than ours.Tman wrote:In answer to your first sentence, that's the hierarchical society we live in, which makes the second sentence arse-about-face too.
Errm, No.Tman wrote:BELIAL wrote:Weak; sick ;disabled;disadvantaged;elderly ,don't drag us down we will be the ubermensch
So if an employer actually picks staff who are suitable and able to do the job,( as against the unable and unsuitable) it somehow implies Nazism?
Judging more on thier probable suitability for employment and the attitude to the job rather than anything to do with thier "character".TrueBlueTerrier wrote:- Here you are judging on the Character of the individuals which is what I prefer.Tman wrote:Years ago posties were ofter ex-servicemen or came in by the cadet route, and either way they knew the system and got on with it.
Whether they "should be" or not is of no consequence to me, but if I was ops in an MC I'd be very aggrieved (and to be fair, many seem to moan constantly about those "lazy useless b'stads" all day long in my MC) if I was the same pay and grade as some of these walking dead now employed.Again you are judging on their characters which if it matches what you said they should be looked down on.
Vey philosophical, I'm sure. Actually I got that bit wrong; when I said "society" I really meant "world". Various Left Wing dreamers have spouted that little concept ("we're all equal") over the years, and then promptly proved that we're all very far from equal by their actions.Just because society does one thing does not make it right.
Wow, thats mega, can you name them? And give quotes,in contextTman wrote: Vey philosophical, I'm sure. Actually I got that bit wrong; when I said "society" I really meant "world". Various Left Wing dreamers have spouted that little concept ("we're all equal") over the years, and then promptly proved that we're all very far from equal by their actions.
