On 01/02/2011 09:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 31/01/2011 09:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 29/01/2011 16:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In


OK, but you've completely misread, cut and misrepresented my post. My
'state of mind' as you call

Sorry. Afraid I tend not to use the "royal we" or say "one". Hence my
"your" wasn't talking about you personally.


Ah, a dialect issue.

A bit of advice - avoid the second person pronoun when having a
conversation beyond your locale. For example, if perchance the issue of
human traffic ires thee, avoid saying to the newsagent as you take your
daily: 'you really should stop doing human trafficking'. Instead, try
'they' instead of 'you'. Or don't say anything. Might save you a broken
nose or two.

:-)


Have you ever heard of structural cause by the way? Or do you think
that might be a bit complicated?

No idea what the "structural cause" part means, I'm afraid. Not jargon
I've previously encountered.


No, OK, it's a reference to certain theories that suggest, amongst other
things, that throwing money at certain issues, especially those linked
to socio-economic disadvantage, doesn't always address the cause, just
the symptom. 'Structures' might include things like governments,
industry, media and discourse - these things are the cause, and the
agents (you, me, them) can only work within those structures, and 'they'
cause inequality etc.

OK. That seems to me to an idea that would be plausible in some cases and
not in others. Reality is probably often a mix.


Yes, it's all chickeny-egg - 'structuration' might appeal, google away.

Rob