what do you think to these new training courses ?

[ColJack]

we ought to get C&G to start a building regulations qualification..
similar to the 2391 but for the building regs..
it would be a usefull qualification to have..

 

[Goldberg]

It only "means" it (i.e. it imparts an intended meaning) because of ignorance and improper thinking.

I respecfully disagree.

Someone can no more be "Part P", or "Part P qualified" than they can be Part A, Part B etc.

Whenever the slang used is unambiguously synonymous with the strict term(s), then someone can be so qualified.

"Part P" is no more a qualification than Part M.

You might not want it to be, but it is, whenever it unambiguously refers to the Domestic Installers certificate.

The fact that it is used that way, and that people know what is meant does not mean that it is not terminologically incorrect, and it does not mean that such use should be accepted.

I disagree. Terminological incorrectness is not always unacceptable. For example, when acceptability is neither solicited nor of contextual value, then it's a non-concept.

 

[wingcoax]

Several white vans running round this area with niceic stickers on also "PART P QUALIFIED"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I respecfully disagree.

Pus aside the fact that is is, as I said, commonly used so, and therefore people do know "what it means", and show me where there is an official qualification called "Part P". Note - training institutions offering the EAL Domestic Installer VRQ and calling it "Part P" because "everyone knows what that means" don't count - you have to be able to show that the official name of the qualification is "Part P".

If you can't, then there is no qualification called "Part P", so people who believe there is are indeed ignorant.

Whenever the slang used is unambiguously synonymous with the strict term(s), then someone can be so qualified.

No they cannot - it is not possible for someone to have a qualification when that qualification does not exist.

You might not want it to be, but it is, whenever it unambiguously refers to the Domestic Installers certificate.

No it is not.

If you believe that it is then show me where there is an official qualification called "Part P". If you can't, then there is no qualification called "Part P"

I disagree. Terminological incorrectness is not always unacceptable. For example, when acceptability is neither solicited nor of contextual value, then it's a non-concept.

I know you disagree, and I disagree with you - it is never acceptable.

Being solicited or not, or useful or not, are irrelevant - wrong is wrong, truth and accuracy and knowledge are never non-concepts.

 

[Goldberg]

...so people who believe there is are indeed ignorant.

Since we've already both registered our respective points of view with the utmost clarity, there's nothing more to add to them. If that means that you regard certain people as being ignorant, then so be it. One person's ignorance can sometimes be another's enlightenment.

Whenever the slang used is unambiguously synonymous with the strict term(s), then someone can be so qualified.

No they cannot - it is not possible for someone to have a qualification when that qualification does not exist.

We could do this "it can" / "it can't" thing all day, so I propose that we agree to disagree, and leave it there.

You might not want it to be, but it is, whenever it unambiguously refers to the Domestic Installers certificate.

No it is not.

Please see above.

If you believe that it is then show me where there is an official qualification called "Part P". If you can't, then there is no qualification called "Part P"

Ditto.

I disagree. Terminological incorrectness is not always unacceptable. For example, when acceptability is neither solicited nor of contextual value, then it's a non-concept.

I know you disagree, and I disagree with you - it is never acceptable.

Acceptability is in the eye of the beholder.

Being solicited or not, or useful or not, are irrelevant - wrong is wrong, truth and accuracy and knowledge are never non-concepts.

You might well be right, but I never said, or thought, that truth, accuracy, and knowledge are non-concepts.

Unfortunately, there is no British Standard (for example) that defines strength of belief or otherwise provides a method of determining who's right, so where two people appear to have equal but opposing beliefs, it's usually best to simply accept it and move on to something more interesting and/or important.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If that means that you regard certain people as being ignorant, then so be it. One person's ignorance can sometimes be another's enlightenment.

Ignorant means not knowing something - that is all.

If someone doesn't know that Part P is not the name of a qualification then they are ignorant. How does not knowing that Part P is not the name of a qualification make them enlightened?

We could do this "it can" / "it can't" thing all day, so I propose that we agree to disagree, and leave it there.

Disagreeing on the importance or desirability is one thing.

Can you find an official qualification called "Part P" - yes or no?

You might not want it to be, but it is, whenever it unambiguously refers to the Domestic Installers certificate.

No it is not.

Please see above.

What I want, or what you want, is immaterial - this is a question of fact - can you find an official qualification called "Part P" - yes or no?

Ditto.

Can you find an official qualification called "Part P" - yes or no?

You might well be right, but I never said, or thought, that truth, accuracy, and knowledge are non-concepts.

Terminological incorrectness is not always unacceptable. For example, when acceptability is neither solicited nor of contextual value, then it's a non-concept.

"Terminological incorrectness" is lack of truth. It is lack of accuracy.

 

[Goldberg]

This isn't one of those situations (if indeed there is ever one) where you write "yes or no?" and someone else is mandated to reply.

I've already indicated that I'm happy to agree to disagree. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Nobody has died, and the planet is still orbiting the sun. Life is sweet.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This isn't one of those situations (if indeed there is ever one) where you write "yes or no?" and someone else is mandated to reply.

Indeed not - if you think that when discussing something with someone it's OK to ignore them when they ask you a question.

I've already indicated that I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I'm surprised that you are happy to be knowingly wrong - I would have thought you had more self-respect than that.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

I have the knowledge that Part P is not the name of a qualification.

Do you have any knowledge that it is?

 

[Goldberg]

I don't think that politely declining to answer a question, especially after observing that we have a simple difference of opinion, equates to ignoring you.

I see no grounds for animosity or unfriendliness, or any other kind of negative feeling or reaction. I don't have very many differences of opinion with people, but when I do I find it's best to act in a kindly way and, as I've already said, carry on with things that are more important.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that politely declining to answer a question, especially after observing that we have a simple difference of opinion, equates to ignoring you.

Someone can no more be "Part P", or "Part P qualified" than they can be Part A, Part B etc.

Whenever the slang used is unambiguously synonymous with the strict term(s), then someone can be so qualified.

In other words you're telling me I'm wrong, and that someone can be Part P qualified, even though you won't provide evidence that there is a qualification called Part P.

"Part P" is no more a qualification than Part M.

You might not want it to be, but it is, whenever it unambiguously refers to the Domestic Installers certificate.

In other words you're telling me I'm wrong, and that someone can be Part P qualified, even though you won't provide evidence that there is a qualification called Part P.

If you believe that it is then show me where there is an official qualification called "Part P". If you can't, then there is no qualification called "Part P"

Ditto.

In other words you are telling me that I am wrong, and that there is a qualification called "Part P", even though you won't provide evidence of that.

I see no grounds for animosity or unfriendliness, or any other kind of negative feeling or reaction. I don't have very many differences of opinion with people, but when I do I find it's best to act in a kindly way and, as I've already said, carry on with things that are more important.

I'm afraid I do regard it as important when someone repeatedly tells me I'm factually wrong and repeatedly ignores requests to prove it.

 

[Goldberg]

If you regard it as important, then that's fine. I'm glad you feel passionately about it. It's simply that it's more important to you than it is to me, that's all.

You've challenged the use of slang, or incorrectness, or improper use, or however you want to describe the thing that you're challenging. I hereby acknowledge all of your requests, and your questions, but this isn't a court of law, and I think it's permissable for me to propose that we agree to disagree.

If the truth is as self-evident as you believe, then any rational person reading this will agree with you, and will disagree with me.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you regard it as important, then that's fine. I'm glad you feel passionately about it. It's simply that it's more important to you than it is to me, that's all.

It's more important to me than it is to you that you are falsely claiming that I am wrong, and refusing to either admit that or prove that I am in fact wrong?

Do you make a habit of going through life saying things about other people which aren't true and then shrugging off their protests with a "I don't care if what I say about you isn't true, it's not important to me whether I'm right or wrong, I just want to accuse you of things you haven't done and I expect you to simply put up with it"?

What a shameful lack of integrity you have.

You've challenged the use of slang, or incorrectness, or improper use, or however you want to describe the thing that you're challenging.

I have challenged the notion that there is a qualification called Part P.

You have repeatedly told me that I am wrong, and that there is such a qualification, and you have repeatedly refused my requests to show the validity of what you say.

I hereby acknowledge all of your requests, and your questions, but this isn't a court of law, and I think it's permissable for me to propose that we agree to disagree.

Permissible? In the sense that you don't need permission to make false accusations and then brush aside all requests to back them up then I guess it is.

But acceptable behaviour? No.

Decent behaviour? No.

Behaviour consistent with a person of integrity? No.

If the truth is as self-evident as you believe, then any rational person reading this will agree with you, and will disagree with me.

I'm sure they will, and as I said above I'm surprised that you have so little self-respect for yourself that you don't care that you come across as someone who thinks it doesn't matter if what he says is true, and thinks it's perfectly OK to falsely accuse others of being wrong.

 

[dunny123]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Goldberg]

Since you seem to be convinced of your own correctness, I really don't understand how it benefits anyone to revisit the same point over and over again.

You seem to regard my disagreement with you as a personal attack, or a personal slight. It was never intended to be that.

We live in a world that's full of imperfection, and slang language reflects and honours the reality of life. If I can fix people's electrical installations to an excellent standard of safety and workmanship, and earn myself a pension, and retire without seriously damaging anything or hurting anyone, and demonstrate love for my family and friends, and do it all without breaking any laws, then I have a degree of integrity that is adequate by my own standards. I understand that there are some people who can't live with imperfection, and I'm relieved, actually overjoyed, not to be one of them.

 

[dunny123]

Since we've already both registered our respective points of view with the utmost clarity, there's nothing more to add to them....... and move on to something more interesting and/or important.