Jump to content
Dougie Do'ins

Living Remotely or Off Grid

Recommended Posts

Interesting convo about architecture and planning.  

Why so many bland buildings? Well, i work closely with our planning department and Council, and there is nothing more political than planning applications.  

In a perfect world, all decisions get delegated to the planning officer, as was likely the intention of the law. In the real world, planning is the main reason most of these lot become councillors.  We quite often see councillors go against the planning officer recommendation, which is by hugely risky to defend in an appeal against refusal.  I very seldom hear a discussion on aesthetics.   It's about restriction of views, neighbours complaining about loss of light, and making sure nobody has a house that's bigger than everyone else's.  Distant second to these are climate change considerations, rain water harvesting, sustainability.

Politics is a popularity contest among middle aged to late aged white people, and this is the driving force behind planning decisions, not excellence and innovation.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2021 at 21:41, neko said:

Needed a bit of a laugh during these dark times, so decided to spend a few dollars on a 3D model of a grizzly bear to add some 'life' to the cottage design before presenting to the wife.




Will post some more images soon.

You make me question my life choices everytime you post a pic mate. 


Awesome place btw. Bastard

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to visit our property in Ontario tomorrow for the first time in almost a year. Going to miss a few important sporting events while I'm there, but I'm quite excited.


Going to be very busy trying to get things organised. I've got site visits planned with a road builder, building contractor, solar energy consultant, forestry advisor and structural engineer.


The design is coming along, but I want to run it past the engineer and contractor before finalizing and submitting for building permits. We won't be starting construction until 2022. Covid really fucked us over in that respect (building costs and labour).


I'd like to have the road in place before this winter though, and maybe even get a garage built. It would be good to have some on-site secure storage so no pic-e-nic baskets get stolen. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

I grew up remotely off the grid, in Bootle.

Not sure “off yer grid” is quite the same thing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rb14 said:

Negged. Disgraceful behaviour. 

Had no idea. Learned something new.


How the once-ridiculed word “finalize” slipped into mainstream American English

“I found the class really impactful.” “I have no bandwidth for this conversation.” “Can you ping me when you’re leaving the house?”


Lovers of the English language cringe when they hear corporate speak seep into everyday conversation. But the jargon-ization of language, it seems, is inevitable.


In the 1960s, the gatekeepers of American English worked themselves into a frenzy over what they deemed a new blight on the language: the word “finalize.” ”Finalize” was the “incentivize,” “impactful,” or “leverage” (as verb) of the 1960s, a piece of bureaucratic jargon and source of deep chagrin for language purists. ”It’s business-letter English, meaning acceptable and undesirable,” sports writer Red Smith said of such jargon in 1969.


“Finalize” was a new verb that meant agreeing on the final terms of something, without actually finishing it. If two people “finalized” a divorce, it didn’t actually mean the divorce was over. “We finalized the vacation” didn’t mean a trip had taken place. In the 1960s, use of the neologism seemed to create dramatic eye rolls in pedants, the way “-ify” (“Can we list-ify this?”) or the construction “the x for y” (“Tinder for dogs”) might today.


The Oxford English Dictionary traces the word back to 1920s Australia. A 1926 book called Timely Tips for New Australians included a glossary of Aussie-isms, including:

The established usage of the word ‘finalise’ (to complete) is..illustrative of the Australian variations of the English language… To ‘finalise a deal’ is an expression in daily use throughout the island-continent.


The word moved from Australia and New Zealand to the UK. Decades later, in 1958, US president Dwight D. Eisenhower started using it. Then in November 1961, someone at a press conference asked then-US president John F. Kennedy if he’d be taking a trip abroad.


“We have not finalized any plans,” Kennedy responded. The next week, no fewer than three news stories, one editorial, and one letter to the editor appeared in the New York Times about the president’s use of the word.

“President strikes blow for ‘finalize’ as English,” said one story. “Please be careful where you walk, because there may be some loose syntax lying about,” an opinion writer seethed at the president. “Meanwhile, let’s invite the cleaners in. They’ll have the know-how to get the job finishized.”


“President strikes blow for ‘finalize’ as English,” said one story.

Kennedy’s use of “finalize” in 1961 was fuel to a fierce debate among American stickler communities of writers, critics, teachers, editors, and lexicographers. Earlier that year, Webster had released its third unabridged international dictionary. Derided by critics as too permissive, the edition included 100,000 new words and definitions, like “irregardless” and “ain’t.” ”Finalize” wasn’t new to the dictionary—it had appeared in the previous edition in 1934—but it became associated by nitpickers with the new debate.


“At a time when complaints are heard in many quarters that youths entering colleges and graduate schools are unequipped to use their mother tongue and that the art of clear communication has been impaired, the publication of a say-as-you-go dictionary can only accelerate the deterioration,” complained one 1961 editorial in the Times, right below two paragraphs on the Communist offensive in South Vietnam.


“The most fundamental thing about language is not whether it is good or bad, but how it behaves, how it is used.”
In a scathing response to the new dictionary, the Atlantic Monthly’s Wilson Follett described the new Webster dictionary’s selection as “the questionable, the perverse, the unworthy and the downright outrageous.”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now