Well, I watched the third installment of Merlin last night and I absolutely loved it. I assume that after the first scene-setting episode they will now continue to follow the format of a stand alone story of bad sorcery that Merlin has to defeat before the end of the episode.
Why did I love this episode? Because I am a girl, and because all the men, even dweeby Arthur, were really masterful and manly. Rrrrr. Also, the characters were all fleshed out a bit more in this episode, particularly Guinevere and Morgana. Colin Morgan does work really well as Merlin, he plays the clever but confused bit well. Particularly notable for his "I will not let this happen" swooshery.
I didn't watch anything else. I've got the following to watch sometime before I forget:
Little Britain USA. Pretty much know what you're going to get here...
Griff Rhys Jones, Losing It, Part 2. I loved the first part of this, because Griff is so very likeable and funny, and it was good watching him lose his temper and talk about it. I'm not so keen to see the second part, because it is about touchy feely making him better guff. But he is marvellous and will presumably carry the show as well as demonstrate suitable skepticism for the touchy feely stuff, so I will watch it and probably enjoy.
Where's Spooks? I need Spooks, even if they do seem set to write out the very lovely Rupert Penry Jones, but compensating by introducing the very lovely Richard Armitage.
Upon searching for the answer to this pressing question (which will undoubtedly be revealed on the cover of the Radio Times, I need only to exercise patience, it will happen sometime) I found all sorts of trailers for Quantum of Solace. This, I am excited about. I've always been a fan of Bond (obviously) but found Pierce Brosnan wet, unconvincing and generally rubbish. Timothy Dalton was fabulous, he was my favourite pre-Craig Bond and I loved the Living Daylights. I can't remember which of the Brosnan ones I liked and didn't like, I know I hated Goldeneye and liked Tomorrow Never Dies, but I can't remember which one of the other two was good and which was unwatchable drivel. Anyway, I LOVED Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is magnificent as Bond (and, shockingly, can actually act) and the film was mostly superb. Except for the whole emotional in love Bond thing, that was too long and tedious and could have done with being trimmed. The Quantum of Solace has Angry Bond, which should be quite a thing to watch.
31st October apparently. Woo.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Irn Bru
Irn Bru
Irn Bru
Every morning we drink you
Orange and fizzy, sweet and sticky
Straight from the fridge we devour you
Juice of all juices, may you fizz and chill
Fizz and chill per-fectly
Irn Bru
Irn Bru
Quench our thirsts here forever.
Notes:
1) to the tune of Edelweiss from the Sound of Music. Sigh, Captain von Trapp. Sigh.
2) actually represented in this house by Diet Iron Brew, I am a heretic.
3) No songs in this house have the right words. This was in fact sung. Badly.
4) THIS IS NOW ON THE IRN BRU WEBSITE!!!!!
Irn Bru
Every morning we drink you
Orange and fizzy, sweet and sticky
Straight from the fridge we devour you
Juice of all juices, may you fizz and chill
Fizz and chill per-fectly
Irn Bru
Irn Bru
Quench our thirsts here forever.
Notes:
1) to the tune of Edelweiss from the Sound of Music. Sigh, Captain von Trapp. Sigh.
2) actually represented in this house by Diet Iron Brew, I am a heretic.
3) No songs in this house have the right words. This was in fact sung. Badly.
4) THIS IS NOW ON THE IRN BRU WEBSITE!!!!!
Things that used to be easy #978,345: watching television
Well, my memory has deserted me for good. I miss it a bit.
I forgot to watch Buzzcocks. Because I'm not used to things being on at 9pm on Thursday? Because I don't like it? Or because I'm a mong? When I got a blatant reminder for next week's episode, the penny smashed into my consciousness and I found it on catchup.
Aaaah. That's better. Even though St Bill was off and was replaced by Mark Ronson. I'm sure I shouldn't like him, but I do. He's no Noel Fielding, but still, yup. I long for Phil Jupitus to be replaced by Noel Fielding, and to have Bill Bailey and Noel Fielding as the two captains. That's not going to happen given Jupitus' knowledge, and the fact that Bailey and Fielding are both as bonkers and surreal as each other and no sense would be uttered from start to end with them and Amstell.
Another programme I didn't watch was Merlin episode two. I recorded it and got round to watching it last night. I'm less impressed now, but I did enjoy it. Anthony Head is marvellous, I must have him round for coffee... Colin Morgan completely reminds me of Ralf Little (possibly influenced by his being the guest on Buzzcocks right before in my special schedule), compounded by Will Mellor playing a character and making my head go into Two Pints of Mead mode.
Finally, I could have sworn I watched the entirety of series two of Ugly Betty. I missed series one on the assumption that I wouldn't like it, then I somehow started watching the end and really liked it (at least in part for the presence of Daniel...). Channel 4 SEEMS to be showing series two, according to the schedules. But things are happening that are later on chronologically than what I was aware of having happened. Have I lost my mind or my capability to take things in? Ahhhhhh. Thank you Wiki (I should not rely on Wiki, this is a sign of my ever shrinking intelligence) apparently there was a big gap (of 9 months!) and the rest of Season (must not say series) 2 is now showing. And I didn't watch it and will have to catch up a month's worth. Sigh.
I remember the days when I watched TV when it was broadcast, or taped it. I think that's why my memory worked back then. I have no need to remember things now, technology does it for me. If I remember to set it up in the first place...
I forgot to watch Buzzcocks. Because I'm not used to things being on at 9pm on Thursday? Because I don't like it? Or because I'm a mong? When I got a blatant reminder for next week's episode, the penny smashed into my consciousness and I found it on catchup.
Aaaah. That's better. Even though St Bill was off and was replaced by Mark Ronson. I'm sure I shouldn't like him, but I do. He's no Noel Fielding, but still, yup. I long for Phil Jupitus to be replaced by Noel Fielding, and to have Bill Bailey and Noel Fielding as the two captains. That's not going to happen given Jupitus' knowledge, and the fact that Bailey and Fielding are both as bonkers and surreal as each other and no sense would be uttered from start to end with them and Amstell.
Another programme I didn't watch was Merlin episode two. I recorded it and got round to watching it last night. I'm less impressed now, but I did enjoy it. Anthony Head is marvellous, I must have him round for coffee... Colin Morgan completely reminds me of Ralf Little (possibly influenced by his being the guest on Buzzcocks right before in my special schedule), compounded by Will Mellor playing a character and making my head go into Two Pints of Mead mode.
Finally, I could have sworn I watched the entirety of series two of Ugly Betty. I missed series one on the assumption that I wouldn't like it, then I somehow started watching the end and really liked it (at least in part for the presence of Daniel...). Channel 4 SEEMS to be showing series two, according to the schedules. But things are happening that are later on chronologically than what I was aware of having happened. Have I lost my mind or my capability to take things in? Ahhhhhh. Thank you Wiki (I should not rely on Wiki, this is a sign of my ever shrinking intelligence) apparently there was a big gap (of 9 months!) and the rest of Season (must not say series) 2 is now showing. And I didn't watch it and will have to catch up a month's worth. Sigh.
I remember the days when I watched TV when it was broadcast, or taped it. I think that's why my memory worked back then. I have no need to remember things now, technology does it for me. If I remember to set it up in the first place...
Friday, 3 October 2008
Self indulgent unintelligible muttering
I don't know what to do with myself today, despite the millions of things I should be doing, so I'm settling for staring at the computer mindlessly.
Jings, I do actually seem to be mindless. How can this have happened? I had one yesterday, or maybe it was the day before. What is your mind anyway, is it the same as your brain?
We'll see what Wiki says...
Mind collectively refers to the aspects of intellect and consciousness manifested as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination; mind is the stream of consciousness. It includes all of the brain's conscious processes. This denotation sometimes includes, in certain contexts, the working of the human unconscious or the conscious thoughts of animals. "Mind" is often used to refer especially to the thought processes of reason.
Well, there we go, and everyone knows that if Wiki says so, then it must be true.
So, do I have a mind?
Intellect. No, that's definitely gone.
Consciousness. Well, I'm awake. Not entirely sure if I am aware.
Combinations of thought:
Perception. Nope. None of that.
Memory. Ha! Ha! Like I know where my keys are.
Emotion. Ah, I have this one. Unfortunately it's set to random:
Situation: sad
Emotion: excited
Situation: joyful
Emotion: annoyed
I am going to go and see if I can perceive some intellectual things and then remember them. If anyone asks what I'm doing, I shall inform them I am perceiving. Then I shall laugh at them and go to sleep.
Jings, I do actually seem to be mindless. How can this have happened? I had one yesterday, or maybe it was the day before. What is your mind anyway, is it the same as your brain?
We'll see what Wiki says...
Mind collectively refers to the aspects of intellect and consciousness manifested as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination; mind is the stream of consciousness. It includes all of the brain's conscious processes. This denotation sometimes includes, in certain contexts, the working of the human unconscious or the conscious thoughts of animals. "Mind" is often used to refer especially to the thought processes of reason.
Well, there we go, and everyone knows that if Wiki says so, then it must be true.
So, do I have a mind?
Intellect. No, that's definitely gone.
Consciousness. Well, I'm awake. Not entirely sure if I am aware.
Combinations of thought:
Perception. Nope. None of that.
Memory. Ha! Ha! Like I know where my keys are.
Emotion. Ah, I have this one. Unfortunately it's set to random:
Situation: sad
Emotion: excited
Situation: joyful
Emotion: annoyed
I am going to go and see if I can perceive some intellectual things and then remember them. If anyone asks what I'm doing, I shall inform them I am perceiving. Then I shall laugh at them and go to sleep.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Economics
I received the following by email today and it made me laugh.
After the recent teetering-on-the-edge-of-total-economic-and-financial-meltdown couple of weeks it seems economic systems and their workings have pushed their way into the need-to-know-category. Well, we can now simplify this all by explaining 21 economic models with cows. It is remarkable how much sense it all makes from this real world perspective!
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk
away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity
swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back,
with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are
transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by
the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your
listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an
option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United
States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the
release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image
called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk
themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...
After the recent teetering-on-the-edge-of-total-economic-and-financial-meltdown couple of weeks it seems economic systems and their workings have pushed their way into the need-to-know-category. Well, we can now simplify this all by explaining 21 economic models with cows. It is remarkable how much sense it all makes from this real world perspective!
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk
away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity
swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back,
with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are
transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by
the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your
listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an
option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United
States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the
release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image
called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk
themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...
BBC did good
They did put Heroes on iplayer.
I didn't miss anything, except, oh look, Claire's kinda bad too in the future. Or is she? These mysteries, so clever, so intriguing, so UNNECESSARY.
I'm going to watch it, ok, you got me in the first series (and the cast are ever so aesthetic) you don't need to have EVERYTHING so it's not what it looks like.
I didn't miss anything, except, oh look, Claire's kinda bad too in the future. Or is she? These mysteries, so clever, so intriguing, so UNNECESSARY.
I'm going to watch it, ok, you got me in the first series (and the cast are ever so aesthetic) you don't need to have EVERYTHING so it's not what it looks like.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
Heroes
No, not mine, the programme. Fear not. Heroes, series three, episode one. huzzah!
New series started tonight, which I TOTALLY forgot about until ten minutes in, I failed to notice that it is in fact October now, I'm still in about April. I did spend at least half the remaining (not very long) episode going "huh?" so I'll put that down to the missed minutes and not my decaying brain. I suspect I merely missed the big recap though. They (the BBC) said, lyingly, that I could catch up on BBC iplayer, but as of now, nothing there. Patience is not a virtue I am familiar with.
So (fluffily) far:
Don't like bad Peter. Peter is the ultimate good guy.
I shouldn't fancy Sylar, but I do. He's the perfect bad guy. He would swoosh beautifully given the chance.
Yay to Mohinder getting an ability! Although there was a "here's the science, ignore or your brain will explode" bit to get to it.
I am bored of the "who is Claire really?" thing, it's been going on since the first episode. Tim Kring said "99% of the questions raised in the first episode will be answered by the end of the series". Oh, don't tell me what the final 1% we have to momentarily ponder before not caring any more will be? Not Claire, surely, no, that would be tedious.
Daphne seems like a good character and (along with the overawed cast), I liked the effect of her trail.
Why does Nathan always have to be a dick? He's been every type of dick there is; now he's a god bothering dick, the very best.
I'm not sure about the everyone's (maybe) a villain thing, I think that just gives them licence to do whatever they feel like with the characters. Which doesn't really work, it just makes it easier for them and harder for the viewer.
****
I do actually like Heroes, but I must stop watching Heroes Unmasked, it makes me despise them all, hence the tone of this. It's good, tonight's episode was exciting, especially the Sylar/Claire bit and I am thrilled that it's back. Even if I forgot to watch it...
New series started tonight, which I TOTALLY forgot about until ten minutes in, I failed to notice that it is in fact October now, I'm still in about April. I did spend at least half the remaining (not very long) episode going "huh?" so I'll put that down to the missed minutes and not my decaying brain. I suspect I merely missed the big recap though. They (the BBC) said, lyingly, that I could catch up on BBC iplayer, but as of now, nothing there. Patience is not a virtue I am familiar with.
So (fluffily) far:
Don't like bad Peter. Peter is the ultimate good guy.
I shouldn't fancy Sylar, but I do. He's the perfect bad guy. He would swoosh beautifully given the chance.
Yay to Mohinder getting an ability! Although there was a "here's the science, ignore or your brain will explode" bit to get to it.
I am bored of the "who is Claire really?" thing, it's been going on since the first episode. Tim Kring said "99% of the questions raised in the first episode will be answered by the end of the series". Oh, don't tell me what the final 1% we have to momentarily ponder before not caring any more will be? Not Claire, surely, no, that would be tedious.
Daphne seems like a good character and (along with the overawed cast), I liked the effect of her trail.
Why does Nathan always have to be a dick? He's been every type of dick there is; now he's a god bothering dick, the very best.
I'm not sure about the everyone's (maybe) a villain thing, I think that just gives them licence to do whatever they feel like with the characters. Which doesn't really work, it just makes it easier for them and harder for the viewer.
****
I do actually like Heroes, but I must stop watching Heroes Unmasked, it makes me despise them all, hence the tone of this. It's good, tonight's episode was exciting, especially the Sylar/Claire bit and I am thrilled that it's back. Even if I forgot to watch it...
Strange
People are strange when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone
Women seem wicked when you're unwanted
Streets are uneven when you're down
When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
No one remembers your name
When you're strange
When you're strange
When you're strange
Note of tenuous linkage: I must watch the Lost Boys again. And finish watching the last series of 24.
Faces look ugly when you're alone
Women seem wicked when you're unwanted
Streets are uneven when you're down
When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
No one remembers your name
When you're strange
When you're strange
When you're strange
Note of tenuous linkage: I must watch the Lost Boys again. And finish watching the last series of 24.
Bee jelly
In another lifetime, I lived in that England place and in order to remember that things occasionally happened back home, I subscribed to the Scotsman newsletter. It still dutifully arrives each day and sometimes I read it.
One of the headlines today was about the decline in numbers of bees, and the implication this could have on crops and human survival. Very interesting, and very relevant. Mostly...
"So many hives are being found empty it has become known as Mary Celeste syndrome, after the ship that was famously found deserted."
Because, like, we don't know what the Mary Celeste was. Although, I did think it was the Marie Celeste, which is me being wrong (unthinkably!) so I'm maybe not in a position to sneer.
Anyway, bees. I'm not sure why there isn't a furore. Einstein said that if bees were eliminated from our planet, humans would follow four years later. Four years? So, there's initiatives (presumably also outside Scotland but I'm paraphrasing from the Scotsman so we don't care) to encourage beekeeping and to help them recognise and combat disease.
But what about Royal Jelly? The wondergoo that is present in everything? I can't find out our greed for it is detrimental to bees, but you'd think we could perhaps forego our own requirements of it to help save the bee. Or maybe it's good for bees to be harvested for Royal Jelly? I don't know, I can't find out, I can only find out how wonderful it is, curing cancer and wiping out world poverty with its gooey greatness. Queen bees apparently live for 6-8 years, unlike the few weeks of a normal bee - I'm guessing it's pretty disastrous if you upset the life of a Queen by harvesting her Royal Jelly. Or maybe it helps? Beekeepers can intervene and feed Royal Jelly somehow to larvae to produce Queens. Could the import of Royal Jelly have caused the increase in parasites that are being blamed for the decline? I'll go for now on the assumption that if there was a link between Royal Jelly harvest and bee decline that someone would have noticed. They would have, wouldn't they?
EDIT: some people have noticed that the parasite may have been carried in Royal Jelly from China. If that's true, we're not harvesting them to death, we're nursing them to death.
One of the headlines today was about the decline in numbers of bees, and the implication this could have on crops and human survival. Very interesting, and very relevant. Mostly...
"So many hives are being found empty it has become known as Mary Celeste syndrome, after the ship that was famously found deserted."
Because, like, we don't know what the Mary Celeste was. Although, I did think it was the Marie Celeste, which is me being wrong (unthinkably!) so I'm maybe not in a position to sneer.
Anyway, bees. I'm not sure why there isn't a furore. Einstein said that if bees were eliminated from our planet, humans would follow four years later. Four years? So, there's initiatives (presumably also outside Scotland but I'm paraphrasing from the Scotsman so we don't care) to encourage beekeeping and to help them recognise and combat disease.
But what about Royal Jelly? The wondergoo that is present in everything? I can't find out our greed for it is detrimental to bees, but you'd think we could perhaps forego our own requirements of it to help save the bee. Or maybe it's good for bees to be harvested for Royal Jelly? I don't know, I can't find out, I can only find out how wonderful it is, curing cancer and wiping out world poverty with its gooey greatness. Queen bees apparently live for 6-8 years, unlike the few weeks of a normal bee - I'm guessing it's pretty disastrous if you upset the life of a Queen by harvesting her Royal Jelly. Or maybe it helps? Beekeepers can intervene and feed Royal Jelly somehow to larvae to produce Queens. Could the import of Royal Jelly have caused the increase in parasites that are being blamed for the decline? I'll go for now on the assumption that if there was a link between Royal Jelly harvest and bee decline that someone would have noticed. They would have, wouldn't they?
EDIT: some people have noticed that the parasite may have been carried in Royal Jelly from China. If that's true, we're not harvesting them to death, we're nursing them to death.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Monday, 29 September 2008
Comments
Any comments slagging off:
Andrew Collins
Richard Herring
Jasper Fforde
Ian Rankin
Marcus Brigstocke
Bernard Butler
will result in smiting.
Andrew Collins
Richard Herring
Jasper Fforde
Ian Rankin
Marcus Brigstocke
Bernard Butler
will result in smiting.
Why Jeremy Hardy is funnier than me
Tonight I saw Jeremy Hardy, which was a very unusual thing to happen in Kirkcaldy, but it happened all the same and he was marvellous. He looks, bizarrely, a bit like Holly Johnson, with a hint of Dale Winton from the side, then he does his big grin and he looks just like himself and rather gorgeous. Which is not a term applied to either of the aforementioned. He does have the best grin ever.
Ah yes, relevance: he was extremely funny, and very entertaining for two hours. Hurrah for value for money. I saw him, I think, two years ago and he was very good then. He is topical and outspoken without being remotely offensive. Clever, witty act. I'm cringing a bit on his observations of bloggers and their sheer inanity, but I did laugh and laugh.
My inner child would like to protest: I have made some genuine friends that have taken a liking to the drivel I write online.
I'm feeling a little blooo however.
For one, I may have had an evening out, but noone told my hair. So when it came to time to get ready and I tried to coax it into submission, it mutinied. stating "Whoa, woman, are you a trained hairdresser? No, I thought not. What are you doing? Why are you disturbing my lank tangled ways? Do you think this is 2005 or something? Get a grip and get back in that kitchen" so it took me out looking a bit bedraggled. The right side relented and went into quite cute curls, the left side simply wasn't up for a night out and did its best to achieve the Real Bedhead look (ie, the "goodness you need a shower" look).
Secondly, I hate being 33. I have hated being 33 since approximately one week before my 33rd birthday, compounded by actually having flu on said birthday. It's a rubbish age, it's such a nothing age, it's not old, it's not young. This is not a new discovery, but listening to Jeremy Hardy, who expresses the things I'd like to be able to think, I feel extremely young and inexperienced. Yet I find young people an alien species, they make me feel past it and shrivelled. It's very disconcerting feeling like a small child most of the time interspersed with feeling like I should be pensioned off.
33 doesn't even know what it is, is it early or mid thirties? At least with 34 you know you are definitely talking mid thirties, which is more definable.
To clarify: Early 30s are 30, 31, 32; mid thirties, 34, 35, 36; late thirties, 37, 38, 39. Where does 33 go? 33 is neither early nor mid, it doesn't know where it is, clinging to the youthfulness of 30, or maturely accepting the inevitability of 35. No, it swings back and forth between the two, being nothing. 34 is nearly 35, which is something, 33 is nothing other than nearly 34. What use is that? 23 has the same problems but 23 is undoubtedly young. By 43 I hope to have grown up and may even be able to talk to people. It's just stupid limbo age, 33. Grr. Roll on January.
Talking of which, winter is arriving, I love it :-)
Ah yes, relevance: he was extremely funny, and very entertaining for two hours. Hurrah for value for money. I saw him, I think, two years ago and he was very good then. He is topical and outspoken without being remotely offensive. Clever, witty act. I'm cringing a bit on his observations of bloggers and their sheer inanity, but I did laugh and laugh.
My inner child would like to protest: I have made some genuine friends that have taken a liking to the drivel I write online.
I'm feeling a little blooo however.
For one, I may have had an evening out, but noone told my hair. So when it came to time to get ready and I tried to coax it into submission, it mutinied. stating "Whoa, woman, are you a trained hairdresser? No, I thought not. What are you doing? Why are you disturbing my lank tangled ways? Do you think this is 2005 or something? Get a grip and get back in that kitchen" so it took me out looking a bit bedraggled. The right side relented and went into quite cute curls, the left side simply wasn't up for a night out and did its best to achieve the Real Bedhead look (ie, the "goodness you need a shower" look).
Secondly, I hate being 33. I have hated being 33 since approximately one week before my 33rd birthday, compounded by actually having flu on said birthday. It's a rubbish age, it's such a nothing age, it's not old, it's not young. This is not a new discovery, but listening to Jeremy Hardy, who expresses the things I'd like to be able to think, I feel extremely young and inexperienced. Yet I find young people an alien species, they make me feel past it and shrivelled. It's very disconcerting feeling like a small child most of the time interspersed with feeling like I should be pensioned off.
33 doesn't even know what it is, is it early or mid thirties? At least with 34 you know you are definitely talking mid thirties, which is more definable.
To clarify: Early 30s are 30, 31, 32; mid thirties, 34, 35, 36; late thirties, 37, 38, 39. Where does 33 go? 33 is neither early nor mid, it doesn't know where it is, clinging to the youthfulness of 30, or maturely accepting the inevitability of 35. No, it swings back and forth between the two, being nothing. 34 is nearly 35, which is something, 33 is nothing other than nearly 34. What use is that? 23 has the same problems but 23 is undoubtedly young. By 43 I hope to have grown up and may even be able to talk to people. It's just stupid limbo age, 33. Grr. Roll on January.
Talking of which, winter is arriving, I love it :-)
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Paul Newman
I was saddened to learn of the death from cancer of Paul Newman, a truly remarkable actor and person.
This, I feel, says it best:
"Paul Newman's craft was acting. His passion was racing. His love was his family and friends. And his heart and soul were dedicated to helping make the world a better place for all," Robert Forrester, the vice-chairman of the actor's foundation.
Paul Leonard Newman
January 25 1925 - September 26 2008
RIP
Friday, 26 September 2008
Silence with potatoes
Last night I sent an email to one of my heroes. He sent a thoroughly nice reply, but I released the talk mechanism in return. The one that thinks it knows about everything, the one that doesn't know when to shut up. So it is time for a spot of culinary intervention.
Necessity stew
Ingredients:
1 medium sized idiot that needs to learn when to shut up
1 modem
1 mobile phone
1 landline phone
3 shallots, finely chopped
1 chilli, finely chopped
2 potatoes, cubed
4 tablespoons of olive oil
300ml water
Preheat oven to 230' C. Heat the olive oil in a wide frying pan and add the shallots. Fry over a gentle heat before adding the mobile phone. Heat until the phone breaks. Add the potatoes and water and bring to the boil. Break the modem and landline phone into little pieces and lay in a casserole dish, pouring over the mobile and potato mixture when boiling and cover with foil. Cook in the hot oven for approximately 2 days or until the idiot is cured.
This dish is best served in the autumn when idiots are best to be pruned of all communicative devices.
Necessity stew
Ingredients:
1 medium sized idiot that needs to learn when to shut up
1 modem
1 mobile phone
1 landline phone
3 shallots, finely chopped
1 chilli, finely chopped
2 potatoes, cubed
4 tablespoons of olive oil
300ml water
Preheat oven to 230' C. Heat the olive oil in a wide frying pan and add the shallots. Fry over a gentle heat before adding the mobile phone. Heat until the phone breaks. Add the potatoes and water and bring to the boil. Break the modem and landline phone into little pieces and lay in a casserole dish, pouring over the mobile and potato mixture when boiling and cover with foil. Cook in the hot oven for approximately 2 days or until the idiot is cured.
This dish is best served in the autumn when idiots are best to be pruned of all communicative devices.
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Politics
Everyone in my life seems to fall into one of two camps politically: right-wing Torygraph readers, or punk-reared semi-anarchists. I don't know where I fit. I don't seem to be able to talk to anyone about it without coming across as simply wrong, because I never actually agree with anyone and at some point in any political conversation the other person gets that "you are so naive/stupid/posh" look on their face which makes me feel like an idiot. I don't think I'm bigoted, I support the Euro and I applaud the current government for many of the things they have done. I liked Blair and don't like Brown. I've never voted Tory, probably never will, but I don't think Thatcher was all bad and I think family values are important (assuming your family aren't bigoted twats).
I did the Political Compass and came out as slightly left of centre and in the middle between libertarian and authoritarian (the not being as libertarian thing is where I differ from most people my age). It seems I share a political outlook with Tony Blair, the 1982 Labour Party and Beethoven. That makes it all much clearer.
I think I need to know more, but it is impossible to find out unbiased information. So what now? My heroes are all semi-anarchist or they're embarrassingly right wing. My husband is a semi-anarchist. I can't even copy.
I was going to suggest maybe I needed my own political party that was a bit woolly and unsure, then I remembered we already have the Liberal Democrats.
I did the Political Compass and came out as slightly left of centre and in the middle between libertarian and authoritarian (the not being as libertarian thing is where I differ from most people my age). It seems I share a political outlook with Tony Blair, the 1982 Labour Party and Beethoven. That makes it all much clearer.
I think I need to know more, but it is impossible to find out unbiased information. So what now? My heroes are all semi-anarchist or they're embarrassingly right wing. My husband is a semi-anarchist. I can't even copy.
I was going to suggest maybe I needed my own political party that was a bit woolly and unsure, then I remembered we already have the Liberal Democrats.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Lost in Austen, final part
Well, I've been left feeling warm and fuzzy, and completely in love with Darcy. This was nice, it made me smile. It didn't try to be clever or groundbreaking, it was just enjoyable tv.
I liked that they left everyone happy, I liked that Jane and Bingley could be together, I liked that Elizabeth was happy in the 21st century. I liked that Wickham was a good guy after all (I always suspected I'd have fallen for him and it's a relief to discover he's not a total cad).
Favourite moment, when Mrs Bennett stood up to Lady Catherine, prompting the ailing Mr Bennett to sit up and exclaim "Tally ho, Wife!"
I'm still not convinced by Jemima Rooper as the main character, I rather wish they'd cast her as Elizabeth and Gemma Arterton as Amanda. I'm not sure how satisfied I am with the "everyone's happy now" ending. That may be to provide an opening for series two; how would she adapt to life in Austen and could she pop back to her own time to clean her teeth?
Each episode of this was an improvement on the last and I am left feeling good by it.
I liked that they left everyone happy, I liked that Jane and Bingley could be together, I liked that Elizabeth was happy in the 21st century. I liked that Wickham was a good guy after all (I always suspected I'd have fallen for him and it's a relief to discover he's not a total cad).
Favourite moment, when Mrs Bennett stood up to Lady Catherine, prompting the ailing Mr Bennett to sit up and exclaim "Tally ho, Wife!"
I'm still not convinced by Jemima Rooper as the main character, I rather wish they'd cast her as Elizabeth and Gemma Arterton as Amanda. I'm not sure how satisfied I am with the "everyone's happy now" ending. That may be to provide an opening for series two; how would she adapt to life in Austen and could she pop back to her own time to clean her teeth?
Each episode of this was an improvement on the last and I am left feeling good by it.
Luftblasenfische
This morning, I received an email from Amazon.de, which I needed to understand and check I had got the gist correctly.
This is what Babel Fish made of it:
Their order was successfully cancellation - for this cancellation order naturally no costs result. They cancellation just now its order #X from 11 September 2008. Status: Cancellation
Note to scammers: if you use babelfish for your devious emails, people will know.
This is what Babel Fish made of it:
Their order was successfully cancellation - for this cancellation order naturally no costs result. They cancellation just now its order #X from 11 September 2008. Status: Cancellation
Note to scammers: if you use babelfish for your devious emails, people will know.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
As if!
There's a bit of a kerfuffle going on, including a letter to the Radio Times (who have apparently received lots of letters about the same thing - one of my greatest fears is that I become the sort of person that complains about a TV programme to the Radio Times) that Lost in Austen is a blatant copy of the Thursday Next novels.
I find this ludicrous. The only similarity is that the action takes place within a book.
Jasper Fforde says (in the Radio Times):
"Although I was - until recently - the most current purveyor of the bookjumping concept, I was not the first. I thought the idea was wholly original until someone pointed out that Woody Allen, Luigi Pirandello and Alan Moore had written something along similar lines. More recently Cornelia Funke has joined the club with her Inkworld trilogy, and there are manga comics that also use the idea. Fantasy is the greatest genre ever, but it can be frustrating: you think you've found bold new territory, and then discover it's covered in footprints."
The Thursday Next books all carry a complex plot of which the bookjumping is a part, involved with other goings on which together form a clever, witty, fantastical story set in an entirely imagined world. I consider Jasper Fforde to be a genius for the way he constructs his tales.
Lost in Austen is a fairly straightforward story in which the character finds herself within a very well known book. That is the entire plot. It does not explain the mechanism, nor does it explain why, nor does it have literary allusions throughout. That's not to say it's not entirely watchable TV, but it is a simple story set in a world that has been long since imagined in great familiar detail. The final episode may explain many things as to how and why the switch was able to happen, but I doubt that is where they are going with it. That's no failing on the part of the writers, it's not that kind of story.
As far as I am concerned, anyone that says Lost in Austen is a copy of Thursday Next is unfamiliar with one or both and are speaking from an uninformed opinion. I would hazard a guess that these complaints have been formulated by those who would not consider watching Lost in Austen and who are therefore rather petty to complain about it. Sadly, I guess this is probably true for 99% of complaints about television programmes.
I find this ludicrous. The only similarity is that the action takes place within a book.
Jasper Fforde says (in the Radio Times):
"Although I was - until recently - the most current purveyor of the bookjumping concept, I was not the first. I thought the idea was wholly original until someone pointed out that Woody Allen, Luigi Pirandello and Alan Moore had written something along similar lines. More recently Cornelia Funke has joined the club with her Inkworld trilogy, and there are manga comics that also use the idea. Fantasy is the greatest genre ever, but it can be frustrating: you think you've found bold new territory, and then discover it's covered in footprints."
The Thursday Next books all carry a complex plot of which the bookjumping is a part, involved with other goings on which together form a clever, witty, fantastical story set in an entirely imagined world. I consider Jasper Fforde to be a genius for the way he constructs his tales.
Lost in Austen is a fairly straightforward story in which the character finds herself within a very well known book. That is the entire plot. It does not explain the mechanism, nor does it explain why, nor does it have literary allusions throughout. That's not to say it's not entirely watchable TV, but it is a simple story set in a world that has been long since imagined in great familiar detail. The final episode may explain many things as to how and why the switch was able to happen, but I doubt that is where they are going with it. That's no failing on the part of the writers, it's not that kind of story.
As far as I am concerned, anyone that says Lost in Austen is a copy of Thursday Next is unfamiliar with one or both and are speaking from an uninformed opinion. I would hazard a guess that these complaints have been formulated by those who would not consider watching Lost in Austen and who are therefore rather petty to complain about it. Sadly, I guess this is probably true for 99% of complaints about television programmes.
Monday, 22 September 2008
Please give me my brain back
Dear Mr/Ms Brainsnatcher
It has come to my attention that my brain is not actually present at present. I don't recall been given notice of removal, therefore I would like it to be returned post haste.
I am finding not having a brain most inconvenient, especially when pressed to finish a sentence, make any sense or remember what I'm supposed to be doing.
I trust you will see fit to reunite me with my brain, and I thank you in anticipation of a speedy reconciliation.
Kind Regards
Thingy
It has come to my attention that my brain is not actually present at present. I don't recall been given notice of removal, therefore I would like it to be returned post haste.
I am finding not having a brain most inconvenient, especially when pressed to finish a sentence, make any sense or remember what I'm supposed to be doing.
I trust you will see fit to reunite me with my brain, and I thank you in anticipation of a speedy reconciliation.
Kind Regards
Thingy
Disgruntled
Lord save me from naughty two year olds that get up at 6.30in the morning and behave very badly leaving me with tolerance for NOTHING.
Especially them. This is me ignoring a tantrum or I will kill them.
I have forgotten how to type, this will be relatively brief due to the amount of time it takes me to retype each word to get the right letters in the right order.
Anyway. These are the things that have specifically annoyed me today:
Why are lasagne dishes not lasagne shaped? Do they have to have curved edges? Could the manufacturers of lasagne dishes not think about the shape of lasagne and adapt accordingly? I make a mean lasagne and it's usefully adaptable for virtually all types of food avoiders. I have thus made many, many lasagnes in my time, and used a number of different dishes. All of which have the same fault. Why? Why am I resigned to snapping the corner off sheets of lasagne forever more, just so they can get an aesthetic slope on the dish? Admittedly it wouldn't be a problem if I made my own pasta from scratch, but I don't see that you should have to buy a pasta machine just to make a lasagne, and no, you can't get it thin enough without a machine.
If people are scared to drive, do they have to drive? If it's that bad, surely someone else could do the driving, or you could walk, or get the bus, or stay in. Instead why do they always have to drive in front of me, ten miles an hour below the limit, slamming on the brakes every time they pass a junction or a car in the opposite direction appears? Driving is not the time for "feel the fear and do it anyway", I have a bit of a zero tolerance approach and feel if you're not going to drive properly, you are a danger and shouldn't be allowed to drive. You don't normally get to do things you are spectacularly inept at.
Yesterday I bought a pair of knee high boots. In wide fit. I have no idea what possessed me not to say "no, you've bought me the fat ones, bring me the regular ones" and just meekly buy them. I tried to convince myself that they were ok, decided that no, they weren't and exchanged them today for some regular ones. They fit, and as the woman in the shop observed, were still a little on the wide side. I am a spanner.
Now we're going to the park for sanity. I've left it too late so there will be other older children there. Damn.
Especially them. This is me ignoring a tantrum or I will kill them.
I have forgotten how to type, this will be relatively brief due to the amount of time it takes me to retype each word to get the right letters in the right order.
Anyway. These are the things that have specifically annoyed me today:
Why are lasagne dishes not lasagne shaped? Do they have to have curved edges? Could the manufacturers of lasagne dishes not think about the shape of lasagne and adapt accordingly? I make a mean lasagne and it's usefully adaptable for virtually all types of food avoiders. I have thus made many, many lasagnes in my time, and used a number of different dishes. All of which have the same fault. Why? Why am I resigned to snapping the corner off sheets of lasagne forever more, just so they can get an aesthetic slope on the dish? Admittedly it wouldn't be a problem if I made my own pasta from scratch, but I don't see that you should have to buy a pasta machine just to make a lasagne, and no, you can't get it thin enough without a machine.
If people are scared to drive, do they have to drive? If it's that bad, surely someone else could do the driving, or you could walk, or get the bus, or stay in. Instead why do they always have to drive in front of me, ten miles an hour below the limit, slamming on the brakes every time they pass a junction or a car in the opposite direction appears? Driving is not the time for "feel the fear and do it anyway", I have a bit of a zero tolerance approach and feel if you're not going to drive properly, you are a danger and shouldn't be allowed to drive. You don't normally get to do things you are spectacularly inept at.
Yesterday I bought a pair of knee high boots. In wide fit. I have no idea what possessed me not to say "no, you've bought me the fat ones, bring me the regular ones" and just meekly buy them. I tried to convince myself that they were ok, decided that no, they weren't and exchanged them today for some regular ones. They fit, and as the woman in the shop observed, were still a little on the wide side. I am a spanner.
Now we're going to the park for sanity. I've left it too late so there will be other older children there. Damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
