Yoof need a reality check

mintedmatty

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

My view is that whatever it costs could be put to better use, and that bumming around is not ideal preparation for work seeking and career building. Not everyone agrees, some think it's all mind-broadening, and perspective-enhancing etc but I don't see it that way. It just a postponement of having to join the real world.[/QUOTE

Travelling is hardly 'bumming around'? You have your point of view, i have mine? Out of curiosity have you ever been outside Europe either on holiday or with work?

GeorgeHowell

mintedmatty wrote: »

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

My view is that whatever it costs could be put to better use, and that bumming around is not ideal preparation for work seeking and career building. Not everyone agrees, some think it's all mind-broadening, and perspective-enhancing etc but I don't see it that way. It just a postponement of having to join the real world.[/QUOTE

Travelling is hardly 'bumming around'? You have your point of view, i have mine? Out of curiosity have you ever been outside Europe either on holiday or with work?

Yes, fairly widely on both counts, but I will admit never to Thailand or Bali !

thescouselander

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

As it happens I tend not to chew my food 28 times, although I am aware it would be better for me to do so. I don't, however, understand your phrase "There's really nothing down for you". I've never heard that before.

But I do understand that it's meant to be insulting, and is therefore, judgmental in itself. As is the sarcasm. I have only said that these are some of my personal gripes, and it was less the holding of the knife than the waving around of cutlery. Of course, if you are uninterested in having good table manners, that's your affair. As I said, they are my personal gripes.

I wasn't being personal to anyone specifically, so why are you being personal to me.

It wasn't an insult as such but I'm surprised you don't think you are insulting people by ranting on a public forum about others not meeting your finicky standards - even if that wasn't aimed at a specific individual.

Jennifer_Jane

thescouselander wrote: »

It wasn't an insult as such but I'm surprised you don't think you are insulting people by ranting on a public forum about others not meeting your finicky standards - even if that wasn't aimed at a specific individual.

I agree that my standards may appear finicky to those who don't have them., and I mean that in a general and not ad hominem sense. I disagree that I was being insulting to "people" by "ranting". That's just over-reacting to a few gripes. I've heard worse on this board.

So you think I've insulted a group of people who wave their cutlery about? :rotfl:

thescouselander

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I agree that my standards may appear finicky to those who don't have them., and I mean that in a general and not ad hominem sense. I disagree that I was being insulting to "people" by "ranting". That's just over-reacting to a few gripes. I've heard worse on this board.

So you think I've insulted a group of people who wave their cutlery about? :rotfl:

Not exactly. It was the concept of continually putting ones knife and fork down between each bite of food that I found a bit strange. I've certainly never heard of that as a requirement of good table etiquette. Of course just because someone keeps hold if their cutlery (as I suspect the majority of people do) it doesn't always follow that they are waiving it about. You did however, suggest that those who don't put their cutlery down have no table manners - that would be most people in your opinion then?

GeorgeHowell

thescouselander wrote: »

It wasn't an insult as such but I'm surprised you don't think you are insulting people by ranting on a public forum about others not meeting your finicky standards - even if that wasn't aimed at a specific individual.

One man's finicky standard is another man's civilised, courteous, and considerate mode of behaviour.

ruggedtoast

mintedmatty wrote: »

Disagree with that totally, ...

There is no point arguing with George on this topic. He neither understands what a gap year is (a working holiday to improve a CV prior to studying) nor apparently knows anyone who has been on one.

His prejudices about young people are based on crude stereotypes drawn from miserable like minded older men, and tabloid newspapers, and he absolutely will not listen to anything else.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There is no point arguing with George on this topic. He neither understands what a gap year is (a working holiday to improve a CV prior to studying) nor apparently knows anyone who has been on one.

His prejudices about young people are based on crude stereotypes drawn from miserable like minded older men, and tabloid newspapers, and he absolutely will not listen to anything else.

The thread is a catalogue of posts attacking the young for their sayings and doings . I blame the parents for many failings.

Too many parents have failed to correct their offspring, given in to their whims, bought them all they want, assumed that what they want is what they need and so on.

toby3000

For one thing, the original poster was not talking to some young people the other day, he's just spouting some cliches. I strongly suspect that disposable income for young people was actually higher in the 1960s.

As to Gap Years, I suppose it could be said I'm on one (though I'm 28), and here in Australia every European I've met is working. In fact, since you can easily make £1500-2000 a month, it would make perfect economic sense for all young people to come here for their 2 years prior to uni!

Fella

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Yes, exactly - so that if people are now saying "Me and John...." they tend to say "Me and John are going to the park". If we say "John and I are going to the park" it sounds better (and is grammatically correct").

To my unmusical ear it sounds no different to say "The money was given to John and me" - as "The money was given to me and John".

Even worse is when people make the same mistake in reverse, such is in "Run To You" by Bryan Adams:

"Sheeeeee says her love for me, could never die
But that'd change if she ever found out about you and I"

The I/Me rule is an easy one too, since all anyone has to do is take out the "you and" (or whatever) part of the sentence, then it's obvious which to use.

So "The money was given to me and John" becomes "The money was given to me" which is obviously corrrect. And "That'd change if she ever found out about you and I" becomes the glaringly wrong "That'd change if she ever found out about I" which would only be correct if it was The Wurzels singing it.