« How to store coriander | Main | The broken mass media model »
April 16, 2005
PCs skills = genius? Puh-leeze!
Those techno-snobs at The Register seemed to be convinced that the fact that Prince Harry flunked a British army personal computer test means he's an idiot. As far as they're concerned, this judgment is confirmed by his less than stellar performance in his A levels.
The fact that Harry possibly isn't interested in computers obviously hasn't entered their heads, any more than the likelihood that the peculiar circumstances of his upbringing, and the squalid, tragic events of his parents' relationship and his mother's premature death, endlessly raked over by the contemptible so-called journalists who work for the British tabloids, might have affected his academic performance, and perhaps at times, his judgment.
We're anything but royalists, but we know a lot of people who aren't at all comfortable with computers, whose achievements and character are beyond anything these petty little minds might aspire to.
And whatever one might think about his morality - we're in no position to make any judgments - Prince Charles has taken some brave and intelligent stands on many issues. He's probably never had to use a computer in his life. But he can fly a fighter and a helicopter. And he's not bad at painting, for that matter.
The fact that someone might know more than others about computers doesn't mean there's anything special happening in their lunchboxes, as Barnaby Joyce observed about Liberal MPs.
Posted by cw at April 16, 2005 11:29 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/850
Comments
Charles,
I am gob smacked with this particular analysis of young Harry and his dim-witted father. Is your current medication not strong enough?
Posted by: jamrob at April 16, 2005 07:12 PM
I daresay you haven't spoken to either at any length, so what makes you so sure they're dim-witted? There's quite a deal of evidence to suggest that Charles is much better informed and prepared to take a stand on issues than the tabloids suggest. And he seems to have a sense of humour.
Posted by: cw at April 16, 2005 09:34 PM
Game, set and match, Charles. Methinks 'jamrob' comes from a parallel universe!
Posted by: bormaj at April 16, 2005 10:16 PM
Oh, I wish that I did.
Posted by: jamrob at April 17, 2005 11:23 AM
But that's what makes living in this one so much fun. You wouldn't want everyone to agree with you on everything, surely? All the time?
Posted by: cw at April 17, 2005 12:54 PM
Quite right too, Charles. People should have the right to be wrong!!!!!!!!!
P.S Noticed the time of your post. Shouldn't you be listening to T.Lane? And whilst on the venerable gentleman, wasn't his 'Age' piece today insightful and concerning?
Posted by: bormaj at April 17, 2005 01:19 PM
Why not? It would be nice for a change!
Charles, we were obviously talking about two different "Prince of Wales" My fellow was the one, who when he died wanted to come back as Camilla's tampon and also told his young wife that he was not going to be the first Prince of Wales that didn't have a mistress. You may say bad taste ,however, I say dim-witted
Posted by: jamrob at April 17, 2005 02:49 PM
Who was it who said that love - and there seems little doubt they're in love, and if so good luck to them - makes fools of all?
It must be trying to live the sort of life where one's most intimate conversations are broadcast for public consumption.
Posted by: cw at April 17, 2005 02:59 PM
Is there a sycophantic echo on this site?
Posted by: jamrob at April 17, 2005 03:19 PM
It's a bot, jamrob. Just ignore it.
Posted by: cw at April 18, 2005 02:34 PM
Dammit Charles! You've found a pastime you're good at. I've tried table-tennis but I just can't cut it. Finally I find a pastime I'm good at( i.e baiting jamrob) and you deprive me of this amusement. Sometimes life's just not fair.
Posted by: bormaj at April 18, 2005 07:59 PM
Admittedly, it's a well-written Bot.
Posted by: cw at April 18, 2005 08:03 PM