Date   : Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:11:28 +0100
From   : rick@... (Rick Murray)
Subject: The whole "reply to" issue

Mark McDougall wrote:

> Every-day life is littered with examples of laws and standards that are 
> ignored in favour of "convention" because convention is simply more 
> practical/intuitive/convenient and - by definition - has become the norm.

I did point out to somebody, off-list, that one of the best ways to 
cripple a business is to "Work To Rule". As in rather than doing what is 
logical and sane, you simply make your protest by following the rules to 
the letter.

I tended to ignore WTRs when working as a care assistant (it didn't help 
the residents^Winmates^Wvictims much), but it certainly showed up where 
rules and common sense differ.

As for my current job - we've a cleaning solution that is considered 
"dangerous" and all protective stuff (gloves, etc) must be used. We have 
a "clean room" where cleaned/washed stuff is kept. It is washed out in 
the cleaning solution and left in the clean room. It is forbidden to 
wear rubber gloves in the clean room, thus requiring you to handle this 
dangerous cleaning solution with bare hands. Work to rule? All 
production would halt instantly on that hiccup alone, never mind the 
dozens of other stupid rules.

BTW, I don't know WHO came up with the idea of plastic visors and 
arm-length gloves for this "dangerous cleaning solution", for it's a 
mild PH7 disinfectant degreaser that is "irritant" if used neat and 
barely anything at all when in the automatic 2% dose. Heck, I've had it 
in my eyes (droplets) before and it stung a little but nothing compared 
to shampoo. I, *personally* think it is a dangerous ploy to treat a 
mostly inoffensive liquid with the same level of care as concentrated 
industrial nitric acid (great for dissolving chocolate!) because to some 
of the more clueless they might not appreciate why one is hanging at 
every hose-wash-station and the other isn't. One you can spill on you 
and it'll itch and maybe burn a little if you're sensitive. The other? 
It'll burn a hole in you, no s**t. Don't EVER want to see that for real. 
Ugh.


Point is, after a little detour, that "rules" and "reality" oft differ. 
The sane man walks the path of reality.


> Ultimately, if you want to take a (lonely) stand against the flagrant 
> disregard of the IETF standard and its (apparent) shocking detrimental 
> effect on the environment,

<giggle> And there I thought Breton pig farmers were responsible for all 
the environmental ills? Where's Jos? Bov? when my neighbour is 
offloading the icky cack of several thousand pigs across the land? <sigh>


 > the economy

Is already sc***ed.


> and world peace,

Hah. When's "planting flowers in pretty patterns in a field" been a hit 
video game?
How about "grab a really big gun and murder anything that moves"? The 
list of these is near endless, and Charlie Booker pointed out the 
absurdities of the latest lot (like beating the crap out of somebody 
"just because") in his Gameswipe programme.


 > (and the IETF standards)

Am I the only person who thinks this looks like something that ought to 
be written on the side of a Firefly class vessel?


Best wishes,

Rick.

-- 
Rick Murray, eeePC901 & ADSL WiFI'd into it, all ETLAs!
BBC B: DNFS, 2 x 5.25" floppies, EPROM prog, Acorn TTX
E01S FileStore, A3000/A5000/RiscPC/various PCs/blahblah...
 >> TO PRIVATE MAIL ME, REMOVE [BBC-Micro] FROM SUBJECT <<