GardenBanter.co.uk - The Romans Tried Aquaducts

0tterbot wrote:

snip

One thing that drives me a bit bats is everyone dumping on schools & school
kids re the curriculum.

Oh, I *so* agree with you! Kids today have to assimilate everything we
did and then some. We never had computers to contend with, or media
studies or any of the trade courses they offer today. I have a young
friend who just sat for Engineering in his HSC! Mind you I have great
respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything
you throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone
seems to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!

I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men. :-)

Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
confines of the towns. AFAICT, they had virtually no contact with
Aborigines and were merchants and farmers and glovers. I wish someone
*would* compile a local aboriginal history for those of us who'd love to
read it! I've rummaged through as much as I could at our local reference
library and there's sadly not much available. I think it had a lot to do
with the fact that Aborigines didn't write their history down and white
folks never thought to do it for them. There are a few tragic, tragic
stories about atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here
(Lake Macquarie area), but precious little about the tribes or how and
where they lived.

It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing g

Not me! I love it too! Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths? I'm in the middle
of re-reading all of those (no wonder the eyesight's so rotten...)

But this is partly what set this thread going - the dude who wanted cuttings
didn't write "properly" for a newsgroup - he wrote sms-style.

Oh, certainly. Except, he failed to make consideration for his audience.
He wasn't writing to his SMSing peers, he was writing to people who use
regular grammar and syntax *and who have no background in fonespeke*. If
you have something to say or want to ask for something, then it helps to
use a language your audience will be able to compute.

Sounds a bit like that wacky modern invention, the "telephone". g!

Exactly. So portable, so efficient, so everywhere (can I say
'ubiquitous'?) The technology on computer is just a millifirkin away
from being ported over to phones and then away we'll go! Once everyone
has a phone-computer in his pocket, the skills that were once so vital
(reading, writing, 'rithmetic) won't have currency any longer. And hey!
I'm an old-fashioned teacher and it horrifies me that this could happen.
I'd love to stop it if I could, but change has to go with technology and
that's really a good thing, when you think about it.

Gawd, I sound like a technophile when really I'm a bit of a Luddite - but I
do strongly think people get worried about literacy somewhat unduly -
instead of enjoying the effects of mass literacy, they see it as further
excuse to get into a panic about the country going down the toilet.

Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly,
history becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life
into context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history
with the same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)

And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!

I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to see
it. I approve of its existence :-)

ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit! I've loved
the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.
Snif. (We-ee-ell... if you count the appallingly horrible annual
concerts my daughter was involved in... I gotta tell you, there is *no*
pleasure to be had in watching Other People's Daughters romping around a
stage and obscuring your own!)

And I _did_ very much approve of poetry
when I was younger, but I just got over it. It's not that I think poetry is
bad or irrelevent - it's more part of a general gripe of mine about people
faffing about with the "arts" as though it makes them a better person, when
in truth the vast majority of them simply don't have enough talent or
relevence & are just being utterly self-indulgent.

Cynical! Read the words of Till Lindemann (google Rammstein: there's a
really good translaton site of theirs out there somewhere). And google
the song 'Democracy' by Leonard Cohen. It's pretty long, but I do love
the way he puts things (if you've just read 'Amerika' by Rammstein, it's
even more poignant).

Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon and
Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein, an
East German group.

Ja, Rammstein. Cookie Monster got a new job & that's what it was G! sorry
;-) I think you bring up an interesting thing, though - poetry set to music
(i.e. a "song") will always have a far greater audience. I think there's a
human need for song but no corresponding great need for poetry. Or so it
seems to me.

Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;-

I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery
to me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a
voice that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a
poetry junkie for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and
music have very fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such
as it is) and each of us can interpret the message in his own way.
That's the point of this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a
poem or look at a painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to
know the history it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach
and Rachmaninoff? Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with
Banjo Paterson and P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).

Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-) I
wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is hard
to pick.

ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;-

The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile.
Dostoyevsky - actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on.
I'm sure we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)

Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old
enough to read Dickens...? :-D

Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!

Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
Mind you I have great
respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything you
throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone seems
to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!

yes, i'm sure they're all right for now, but we have to draw the line
somewhere!! (and we need to stop it with the stupid criticism, too). it used
to particularly outrage me when ignoramuses such as the ex-p.m. were having
a go. boring and tiny-minded ideologues should stay out of public debates
until they show they have a passing acquaintence with what they're talking
about!!!

I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men.
:-)

Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
confines of the towns. (snip) There are a few tragic, tragic stories about
atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here (Lake Macquarie
area), but precious little about the tribes or how and where they lived.

but i didn't ONLY mean aboriginal history, but non-white-male histories in
general - women, children, other immigrants, etc etc. people are now very
interested in non-white-male histories, but there aren't many to be had
because nobody thought these people were important or interesting. so as a
historical device, white mens' stories are of interest, but they also
highlight other stuff we can't know. all that man-from-snowy-river stuff is
considered "important" here in australia, but it leaves the lives of 99% of
people unrecorded entirely, iyswim! that's all. so therefore, i don't think
it's worth getting too sentimental about, really.

It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing g

Not me! I love it too!

all right then - friends for life! ;-)

Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths?

ah, no :-)

Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly, history
becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life into
context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history with the
same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)

And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!

i'm not having a go at old people!!!! i'm not sure why you thought that.

i do think you're right in that many have a tendency to whinge pointlessly
just because things are different with time (but it's always been that way).
er, if that's what you were saying, that is ;-) i rather hope that when i'm
old i'll be able to see the good as clearly. there WERE no "good old days",
there just never have been! every time has it's good & bad, life's just like
that. _that_ is what wisdom is - the ability to see clearly & use & share
knowledge (without feeling the urge to moan on about everyone else who is
younger than oneself ;-)

apparently, it's a necessary phase of life to be looking back in one's
dotage (in the same way the very young only look forward) but really, some
people take that much too far & it just becomes whingeing. i find camera
phones unspeakably loathesome in every way, but badgering everyone i know
with that opinion would not get me very far, would it? :-)

i was born in 1970, which means ALL MY LIFE i've had to sit by rolling my
eyes while people blah on about how fabulous the 1960s were & how anyone
younger than that has missed everything worthwhile and rah rah rah. god,
it's so boring!!!!!! but mostly, it's demonstrably untrue - you can't make
that claim of any era & it's foolish to even get started. if a person wants
to be a bore, they should at least aim to be a bore with a balanced
viewpoint ;-)

I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to
see it. I approve of its existence :-)

ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit!

well, exactly!

I've loved
the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.

i've only ever seen one, as a kid (a local production, so it probably wasn't
even all that good, although i thought it was wonderful!). still, it was a
very special experience! i feel a bit mortified that we can't take the kids
to more erm "high culture" stuff, but it's beyond the price range of almost
everyone, isn't it?

Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;-

and i think it's nice that there is something out there for everyone!

I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery to
me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a voice
that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a poetry junkie
for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and music have very
fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such as it is) and
each of us can interpret the message in his own way. That's the point of
this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a poem or look at a
painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to know the history
it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach and Rachmaninoff?
Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with Banjo Paterson and
P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).

as they say - comparisons are odious. (not to mention the fact that many
things are incomparable.) do you read the smh? if not, the other week,
grown-up adults were getting all bothered in trying to compare "high"
culture with "pop" culture & everyone convinced they alone are right
(really, beatles fans have a great deal to answer for when it comes to
de-braining cultural debates!! ... and yes, i think the beatles are
dreadfully overrated, too g.) anyway, simon tedeschi who is a lovely young
man who is very "high culture" without feeling that that makes him superior
in any way, made the best contribution on that score (which in effect was,
"these things are too different to try to compare, so talk yourselves
down!")

Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-)
I wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is
hard to pick.

ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;-

well you can if you like, it's a free society g i don't think mass appeal
means something is "good", though. the sales figures that the top-selling
mills & boon (etc) titles get is enough to make literary novelists howl at
the moon, but again there wouldn't be any "comparison".

i did like "the hobbit" though. perhaps lotr is just a plot idea stretched
too far? i think the author, and those readers, like the aspects of a
fully-formed imaginary world with maps & languages etc etc a bit more than
they like the literary aspects? (just guessing).

The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile. Dostoyevsky -
actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on. I'm sure
we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)

Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old enough
to read Dickens...? :-D

maybe - but wasn't he a best-seller in his own time? there's no reason that
one should now have to be older to like it, necessarily.

Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!

Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D

nature is a poem, the magnificence of which words couldn't begin to
replicate!!!!!!!
:-D
on that pompous note....
(no, i really do believe that, but it's not a big deal, & i doubt anyone
else cares :-)

kylie