Phrases from Timmy

sometimes shit just happens and which turd depends upon what has been eaten beforehand.

8 thoughts on “Phrases from Timmy”

  1. You obviously view your readers at that august publication as immature, intellectually-underdeveloped twerps: shit, turds …..

    May I take it that they are largely IT people?

  2. Good work Tim, but your pieces really need proper editing, so it is unfortunate that The Register doesn’t do this.

  3. Oi dearieme, I’m an IT people. Since 1965. So my intellect has developed and matured over the decades. Is not the fact that I am writing here proof enough? I read El Reg to keep in touch with the techie world; I like its tongue-in-cheek, and often erudite, content. Its two-/one-fingered* gestures to those of a delicate sensibility appeals to me.

    * delete according to your country of origin

  4. Excellent piece TW, but as dearieme says, wrongly titled for the Reg’s audience of mickey-taking technos.
    VftS, welcome to a fellow veteran.

  5. Most of the IT people I’ve known lack the lightness of wit to take the micky: their sense of humour has seemed moored to about age 14.

  6. “competition is really the way that we decide who we’re going to cooperate with”

    Absolutely. The modern Left scream that they’ve already competed their way through school and competed to a decent grade at university; why the hell should they have to compete any further? That’s their underlying complaint.

    Whether it’s “scrap all this NHS/schools competition and let the professionals do their job”, or “things were better in the 1950s because we had a job for life”, it’s that same fear & hatred of having to compete throughout their lives.

  7. > Most of the IT people I’ve known lack the lightness of wit to take the micky: their sense of humour has seemed moored to about age 14.

    Yeah? Well, your dick’s tiny.

  8. Good in parts. Your remarks about Mortality Amenable to Healthcare are poor – it’s a measure any country should want to improve, but it’s really not comparable between countries, because it doesn’t take account of the widely different incidence of various diseases. For example, a big part of the score comes from ischemic heart disease, and countries around the Mediterranean (France, Italy, Israel, Spain…) get very low (ie good) scores for that. Is that because they all treat it much better than the US and Finland? For another example, countries with large, densely populated cities (USA, Japan) get high (ie bad) scores for infectious diseases. Is that because they treat them much worse than Austria and Finland?

    The notion that costs at Singapore levels are achievable elsewhere is incredible. A major factor in Singapore is that about 30% of the population is classified as foreign, not qualifying for subsidized healthcare – where’s the equity in that? And the foreigners are almost all working age – you could try estimating healthcare costs as a proportion of GDP excluding the contribution of foreigners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *