Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

PasturesNew

Nikkster wrote: »

Who would be stupid enough to use something close to their real name as their online alias?

I'm happy to be called across a crowded chip cafe at NP meet ups "Hey Pastures - they've got banoffee here - you like that".

PasturesNew

GDB2222 wrote: »

May the year ahead be a happy and sweet one for all the NPs.

Ditto .... and don't forget to over-eat, else what's the point of calling it a celebration??

michaels

Nikkster wrote: »

I agree re the non-oddity. Likewise I expect people to not answer any questions/ comments that they would prefer not to.

Who would be stupid enough to use something close to their real name as their online alias?
I guess maybe someone who only intended to lurk once the board became hidden?

I don't know who would be that stupid? Perhaps people who wouldn't mind if their identity was known?

PasturesNew wrote: »

Ditto .... and don't forget to over-eat, else what's the point of calling it a celebration??

Shame it has encouraged spamming of Facebook news feeds though....

chewmylegoff

zagubov wrote: »

Genes are body parts/components (albeit microscopic ones) and by common agreement cannot be owned any more than complete people.

They can be used as a basis for therapies and as part of the global human genome project it was agreed by all researchers that genes discovered could not be used as the basis for exclusive commercial products that would preclude others from developing cheaper alternative therapies so as to maximise profits for particular companies.

I thought the human genome project deliberately published all of its information on line in order to scupper any attempts to patent sections of the human genetic code?

GDB2222

zagubov wrote: »

Genes are body parts/components (albeit microscopic ones) and by common agreement cannot be owned any more than complete people.

Is it just human genes you object to?

How about plants? Do you object to plant breeders being protected, whether their plants are produced by gm or traditional means?

I guess I could look it up, but what is it that Myriad are accused of having done? That website was high on rhetoric and incredibly low on detail.

LydiaJ

SingleSue wrote: »

Youngest has finally worked out he has a TA in the classroom just for him, they are trying to allow him to be independent but have someone there for when he appears to be struggling...worked well so far as he has not felt 'special' (he hates feeling or looking to be 'special') whilst his needs are also being looked after.

Tiredness is still a big issue for him, he is horrendously fatigued and is having difficulty keeping going and keeping awake as the week goes on, so his sleeping pattern is completely up the swanney!

But he is still loving it....phew!

Splendid news. :j

michaels wrote: »

I don't know who would be that stupid? Perhaps people who wouldn't mind if their identity was known?

I think it was implicit in Nikkster's statement that what she meant was "Who would be stupid enough to use something close to their real name as their online alias if they didn't actually want to disclose their identity?" - otherwise she wouldn't be suggesting that the answer to the question was "people who were only intending to lurk".

Notice too that she says "close to their real name". No criticism of people who knowingly choose to use their actual name as a screen name is implied.

lostinrates

Yeah, its true.

I should have gone with something other than lost. Or at least different from 'in rates'. in rates is pretty traceable. I thought lack of capitalisation hid me well.

Pfft . I was wrong.

zagubov

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I thought the human genome project deliberately published all of its information on line in order to scupper any attempts to patent sections of the human genetic code?

That's my recollection as well. This looks like somebody trying to find a loophole and getting a gullible government to let them away with it.

Generali

There's some more detail here:

http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/mutation-of-breast-cancer-gene-can-be-patented-says-federal-court-20140905-10ckfp.html

I have some sympathy with the biotech firm. If they're not going to research this then who will do the research? If they can't profit from it they won't do it.

I was treated recently for cancer using all sorts of treatments that were created for profit. I was treated by doctors, nurses, radiologists and specialists who were all in it for the money. I was treated in a private hospital which makes a profit, paid for by an insurance company which makes a profit.

I have a long, happy and healthy life ahead of me thanks to the profit motive.

GDB2222

lostinrates wrote: »

Yeah, its true.

I should have gone with something other than lost. Or at least different from 'in rates'. in rates is pretty traceable. I thought lack of capitalisation hid me well.

Pfft . I was wrong.

I am interested in the NP, so of course I am interested in you. But not enough to google you constantly or attempt to stalk you. That's more PN's sort of thing, the searching for things, not the stalking!

In fact, Xxxxx told me your name, but (and hopefully this won't upset you) it meant nothing to me. I avoid watching impersonators on television, because I have never heard of the person they are impersonating. The audiences love it, but it goes completely past me . Whooooooooosh! Probably, that's why your name meant nothing to me. Or maybe you are simply blessedly anonymous, like the rest of us.