No, you didn't. I was simply trying to clear that one up as I'm making no connections between the two.


I'm in complete agreement.


This is where we begin to unravel. Neither I, nor anyone else suggested Ben was "superior" to anyone or anything. I merely commented on his socio-economic background.



I'm beginning to understand where the confusion is coming from. All the stuff that I've been talking about - income, education, class background - this is what Socio-economic background actually is.

Socio-economic status doesn't have anything to do with behaviour, attitude or hard work. These things aren't measured when determining socio-economic status.

And I'm going to try and say this very clearly, because this is where you fundamentally misunderstand me.

Your socio-economic background has absolutely no bearing on the quality of person you are, your abilities, your attitude, your fundamental worth as a person. This is measured by the factors you've outlined in this discussion - your true good manners, how you treat people, your commitment and dedication to work. Ben doesn't fulfil this criteria for me any more than he does for you.


For the third time, but just to keep stressing that we are on the same page with this one, I totally agree.


Related to what I've said above. Someone will be called upper middle class because of what school they've been to, because these are the markers by which class is measured.

You are ascribing some kind of element of moral superiority to the term upper middle class which I have never suggested and in fact completely disagree with.

And just to finish - Ben is knob and his behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.

Harumph... I agree that class isn't relevant when discussing morals. I still maintain that it is relevant to behaviour, unless there is a separate class for chavs with money and privilege. I don't think Ben is actually superior, I think he thinks he is. However, I have more respect for someone who is rough, but genuine than I do for Ben, who is a complete tosser. We should disregard class, and look at the individual.

I don't think either of us is actually confused, I'm just stating what I think about the way I view the class system, if there is such a thing. Even academics can't actually agree about how it can, or should be measured, because it is virtually impossible to these days.

Basically I don't disagree that what school someone went to is a marker for measuring their class. I disagree that it should be a marker altogether, because I think its meaningless, unless your class is based entirely on your financial circumstances.

Oh Peely, I feel like I'm banging my head off a brick wall here.

First of all, I object very strongly to the comment you've made in bold as that is the exact opposite of what I'm saying and I've made that clear again and again in my posts. I can only assume that you're coming to them with a very strong pre-conceived idea of what I'm going to say - so you miss what i'm actually saying.

So here's it again. When you're determining socio-economic status - economics is one of the factors you look at along with education and the kind of job you do.

When you're determining the quality of a person and their true worth and value in society, class (and economics) are totally irrelevant.

Maybe this will help - I didn't come up with or define the notion of socio-economic status. Here's some stuff from wikipedia from the ONS. People use these markers and put people in these groups for research purposes. That's all they're used for. They are not a measure of your superiority or inferiority in society.

National Statistics Socio Economic Classification (2001)

The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) produced a new socio-economic classification in 2001 - Reference. The reason was to provide a more comprehensive and detailed classification to take newer employment patterns into account.
Group Description Old equivalent
1 Higher Professional and Managerial A
2 Lower Managerial and Professional B
3 Intermediate occupations C1 and C2
4 Small Employers and non professional self-employed C1 and C2
5 Lower Supervisory and technical C1 and C2
6 Semi Routine Occupations D
7 Routine Occupations D
8 Long term unemployed E

As you've pointed out, it's often not as clear cut as this. My own socio-economic background is very mixed.

Okay, the changes you made in your post have clarified your position and we aren't actually in disagreement. There's certainly an argument to be made that there's no need to measure socio-economic background in this way, but there are professionals/academics that find it useful. In the kind of work I do, it's very helpful to group people into these categories, although we do appreciate that it's a very blunt tool.

Back to the plot.Ben is gay. He doesn't know it yet. But he is.

Thank you, because I think your previous post was extremely patronising, simply because I don't think the argument is clear cut, except to those individuals and organisations it suits.

Anyhow, lets leave it there, and get back to the gaydar. If I met Ben briefly I wouldn't think he was gay. However I would think he's trying too hard, which may make me think he was trying to hide something.

Id try and turn Ben if he wasnt already gay or entice him out of the closet!

My gaydar is now on Noorul-overdrive...

He knows it. He just thinks we don't!

I like to think my Gaydar has done me exceptionally proud in this inst.

Yeh - Well done you! For once not just a question of wishful thinking!!! LOL

There's no need - He's out!

I see all these claims to be able to spot who is gay after a few minutes of TV coverage, even if the person in question "doesn't know it yet".

How accurate do people claim their "gaydar" to be? Have their been any double blinded trials measuring the effectiveness of gaydar? Or have there been any long running threads on that TV programme "Gay, Taken, or Straight", with people keeping running totals on how often they got it right?

Ben is gay; it's already being discussed in the other thread.

His gaydar profile was found. However, it was removed not long after the OP of the other thread posted it. Nevertheless, I managed to recover his pictures on the site from my history:

http://s589.photobucket.com/albums/ss337/gratingcheese/

gaydar is a powerful force to be reckoned with. Stronger than the Jedi Force in fact. It's just we have prettier light sabres.

Was Lisa del Giocondo gay?

I don't do lesbian. I majored in bears.

http://www.tahoehometalk.com/wp-cont...bears_5345.jpg

The one on the left, the one on the right, or both?

BTW, I saw the other, ben, thread. If he did express a preference for "older hairy men" and then went on The Apprentice, then that would be hilarious!!!!!

Phwoaarrr. One on the left is Arthur bear, Martha bear on the right.
Ben is only in it cos he wants to be Mrs Sugar.
Or rather have a Sugardaddy....

Love the first pic in his shirt and tie with arms folded, love a man in a suit!!

Here's published research on the accuracy of gaydar

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18810629


Edit: Although, this research doesn't test whether gaydar works for "targets" who are not aware (or lie) about their sexual orientation.

Surely that's slanderous?

Surely if indeed he is (and I don't think he is at all) then he should be allowed to be the judge of that and announce that himself?

EDIT - Just seen the pics and mention of a gaydar profile, either way, if he doesn't want to speak about it / let people know it's his business.

Noorul - I think he is too, but he might just be camp. I'm not the most masculine of men in terms of personality and I'm straight.

Philip - Don't see it myself. If he was trying too hard to be lad-ish he wouldn't be as open about his metro side.

Plus love how every remaining candidate has shown up on at least one person's gaydar here. Either gay guys are very good business men or the apprentice producers are selecting candidates from gaydar .

What about Nick and Sir Alan, straight or gay?

(edit: retraction) I thought Nick is openly gay

This is quite possibly the gayest series of TA ever.

Nick Hewer? First I've heard of it..

I know that last year candidate Nicholas was.