saintbletch

A truly inventive and thoroughly well thought out suggestion dune. I believe that British water companies are expert at managing water levels and are able to produce water on demand even in drought areas. Failing that, our farm managers are able to grow crops without recourse to such 20th century concepts as hydration. We'd certainly be able to get a tidy return in a very short period of time from 'these countries'. Well done, that's that solved. But I'm confused. Help me out would you. Above, when you say I presume you're advocating that we should take some action to help people in 'these countries'. This however is at odds with your post below where you said. I'm not sure I can reconcile those two statements. In one you appear to say, categorically, that you do not care what happens in 'these countries'. Yet in the other you seem to be advocating putting in place a scheme to offer help. Setting aside the obvious bountiful profit that could be returned from East Africa, why are you even thinking about offering help when you 'couldn't care less' about 'these countries'? The only way I can reconcile the discrepancy is if you don't actually hold either belief but are instead posting them for some form of effect. I'm sure that's not the case because you'd have to be some sort of complete **** if you felt that it was OK to chose such a pathetic stooge as the object of your 'humour'. So assuming it's not that. Could you help me to reconcile the two statements dune?

Me neither dune. I have zero compassion for children like this. Looking at this picture stirs no human emotion in me whatsoever. I also make a distinction between children like the one above and similar starving children in my own country. This is an attitude I'm proud of.

Well again we don't agree Barry the Badger. I agree that the process by which language evolves is natural. But the communication media are not necessarily natural. To illustrate my point; which thing is the most natural? the telephone? email? the text message? tv shows? radio shows? films? To my mind these are all unnatural accelerators of a natural process. The distinction is important because with non-natural media, governments can legislate to try to protect a language or culture - as the French and to a lesser degree the Welsh have tried. The process of language evolution cannot and shouldn't be resisted but the speed and means by which it changes can be influenced. Whether we should try to protect our language and even if we did try whether we could protect our language is another discussion.

Some evolutionary scientists refer to the process you're describing as memetics. The argument is that in the same way that our genes move around the gene pool over time based on the the dominance (fitness) of the gene owner, so memes do the same. Instead of a unit of genetic information; a meme is a unit of cultural information - a word, phrase, idea, concept, behaviour, belief, philosophy, etc. As we see others 'benefiting' from using a word, phrase, behaviour, etc. so we turn to it to derive the same 'benefit' for ourselves. Albeit largely subconsciously. I do agree that the process you describe above can work both ways, such that English memes find themselves in use in the rest of the world. The issue however is the dominance of US-based media companies. Massive media organisations can bankroll the best film, tv productions, music, video games. Global programming like this makes a lot of commercial sense to massive media organisations. As our language is 'the same' then many of the best 'products' come to us from the US. Our youth then understandably watches, listens and plays all day long, immersed in a language similar but not the same as ours. Over time the transfer of 'memes' happens by stealth. The Internet has accelerated that process still further. I have to say that if we hadn't had such a strong national broadcaster over the past 50 years, the majority of our television intake of comedy and drama would have originated in the US and our language as a distinct variant of English would have been near extinction now. I'd concede that we definately punch above our weight in music where we've had a massive influence around the world and perhaps BBC America is responsible for some US citizens using the term 'sonic screwdriver' but that's about it I fear.

Perhaps I didn't make that very clear. I'm sorry you didn't understand Barry the Badger. The OP posed the question about why this trend was so apparent 'nowadays'. You appeared to be saying that this was just a natural process. My response, was attempting to say that whilst I agree there is a natural process, the reason 'why so many people are trying to sound American nowadays' is that the natural process is being accelerated by unnatural means. Now you could argue, and perhaps you are - it's not clear, that everything that causes language to evolve is natural. I would say that the natural evolution relies on direct, face-to-face communication. Everything else that has allowed for our language, grammar and memetics to evolve is unnatural. This includes books, phones, TV, Internet, etc. And I feel that it is these unnatural influences that have hastened the pace of evolution. As you say, it doesn't change the fact that the process has started and by the end of it we'll all be talking a homogeneous blend of global English heavily influenced by American culture. But, if you are saying that the pace of change is natural, then I don't agree. My daughter has met very few Amercans face-to-face but that didn't stop her from referring to the sloping front section of a car as a 'hood' the other day.

I don't agree that it is a natural development of the language that has happened across centuries. I agree that language changes and always has. For centuries though; this has been down to the slow ebb and flow of population movement due to migration, displacement due to war/famine, etc. Technology introductions like the printing press and initiatives such as lending libraries have all increased the pace of change a little. However the arrival of the Internet/new media, satellite broadcasting and the popularity of American music artists has accelerated this enormously in recent times. There is a tipping point after which our youth will not know what the 'proper' words and terms are and I don't have great faith in our schooling system to change that. I for one mourn the speed at which our own language is being replaced by a global English based on Americanisms. I also realise that there is very little that can be done about it because as you say, it is natural for language to change and adapt. But the pace of change brought about by our now global inter-connectedness is totally unnatural.

I like the Nashaa but wouldn't rave about it. I'm off there tonight in fact and I know I'll have a very good meal and good service and it won't cost an arm and a leg. They changed the menu about 6 months ago and it has some very unusual dishes on it now and I'm still working my way through it. I'd love to know how they are still in business as there never appears to be more than 20% occupancy whenever I'm in there. The Great Moghul is still in Eastleigh and is another I go to a lot. Again, it's in the same category as the Nashaa - doesn't disappoint but doesn't wow you either. The menu isn't as adventurous as the Nashaa's. I got told that The Leigh site is going to be a Kuti's but haven't seen anything definitive about it. Locally, I'd recommend the Rimjhim in Colden Common if you want something a little bit different with a little more quality. The menu is slightly out of the norm, the food quality is top drawer and service is great. Winchester version of the same restaurant is good too.

That's a good point Fowllyd. I think Costello wrote the song 'for' Wyatt. So perhaps that technically shouldn't be in the list of covers as it looks like I prefer the 'original' even though it wasn't performed by the author. If you see what I mean. I had a landlord who used to play music loud on a Sunday morning and more often than not I'd come round from my stupor to Robert Wyatt's Shipbuilding. I saw Costello at Portsmouth Guildhall perform Shipbuilding on the day that (I think) Camel Laird shipyard had announced it was closing/laying off people. A great performance which pushes his version very close to the one I'm more familiar with.

It's funny because I have a mate who loves Lennon and has said exactly the same thing to me. He thinks I'm a cultural philistine. I can appreciate Lennon and I do see his genius, but just like the Beatles and Elvis they were before my time so I don't really relate to them. But to me it's not about being 'better', it's about familiarity and preference. I was too young to listen to music when Lennon's original was released and was in my mid-teens when Roxy Music's Avalon album was released. So when I subsequently discovered John Lennon's version, after the fact, I didn't like it as much. Good shout on Sinead O'Connor BTW.

Good thread! Japan's All Tomorrow's Parties versus The Velvet Underground with Nico's Johnny Cash's The Mercy Seat versus Nick Cave's (in fact Johnny's Cash's American.... series has produced some fantastic covers as others have said on here) The Fall's Victoria versus The Kinks' Roxy Music's Jealous Guy versus John Lennon's R.E.M.'s Love is all Around versus The Troggs' Muse's Feeling Good versus Nina Simone's (sacrilegious to say it) The Smith's Golden Lights versus Twinkle's (yes really! - had to look that one up.) Robert Wyatt's Shipbuilding versus Elvis Costello's (a VERY close thing).

Fonte: I don't believe it Alex you funster. Run and change, you're wearing Arsenal socks!

Actual size.

restbite

Hamster, I read that thread and when I saw Deppo's comment I thought 'harsh', but then I read your own use of it earlier in the thread and it was just another example of Deppo's brilliant humour. But I fear that from now on that incident will be known as the Bell End Controversy in these parts. Deppo made this slowly dying forum a much funnier place. I'm sure he would be proud to see this spontaneous movement to reinstate him. So now we've got a campaign logo, may I now suggest a campaign slogan? Free the bellend one.

LOL I'm just honoured that you felt compelled to read it all Deppo.

My advice would 2 pages and cut out the padding and get straight to the point. How do you do that? Well here's how... It's about pink elephants... When writing a CV, most people naturally want to tell a career story from start and build to an impressive finish. When sifting through a mountain of CVs most employers want, either by training or subliminally, to make a match to the job they are recruiting for in the first 2-3 sentences and will then confirm their gut feel by browsing career and education details. The two needs are at odds with each other. Our attention span when we start something new is at it's greatest and wanes over time. So we need to put our most important content early in the story when our readers attention is at it's greatest. Hopefully they are then hooked and read for the detail. If you can fit a question into your opening line, all the better. As humans we find it difficult to avoid processing a questions as we are scanning text. We feel the need to construct the sentence in our minds before answering it - which forces us to stop scanning and concentrate. Why does the most successful SPAM email always start with a question? Because it forces us to process the subject even though it might contain the words Canadian and Pharmacy. It's a psychological trick. If I say to you "Don't think of a pink elephant". You have to first think of the elephant, colour it pink before you process the instruction not to think of it. It's the way that most of our brains are wired. Look at my opening line. That explains why you're still reading. Assuming you are. Because you feel I'm going to come to the point sooner or bloody later. But I bought some of your time with those opening lines. So my advice would be that it is ALL in the opening. The rest of the CV will have to contain information that will not cause you to be rejected but if you haven't won them over in the first line, paragraph, half-page; then you're dead already. You want to make an interview list so you can win them over in person. So... 1) Personalise every application to each specific job. 2) Read their job description and make a note of all the words and terms that they use to describe the skills and attributes they believe the successful applicant will posses together with the experience they think they are looking for. 3) If you feel you have some very specific headline experience for the role, write an eye-catching headline. Perhaps you worked for a competitor or have some very relevant, maybe unique technical experience. "I believe my 5 years experience working for ACME (a competitor) makes me a good match...". 4) Write 3 sentences at the top of your CV that uses, as best as you are able to, their words and terminology to describe why you're a match for the job. Don't be afraid to embolden certain words (although you should use your judgement as to whether that might make it look a little amateurish). Try to use a question if you feel comfortable doing so. 5) Add a career history that again highlights information relevant to the job you're approaching. Always make it specific to the job you're applying for. Reverse chronological order. 6) Add an education and personal summary section - avoid being to trite or cheesy with your personal description. 7) Avoid putting something ONLY in the covering letter. Most CVs that crossed my desk as an employer had had the letter removed by the fascist HR dept. Assume the recruiting manager will only have a CV.

judge

green

tree

Amen to all that.

All true. And all so obviously true that I'm surprised that didn't think that you must have missed my point. Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer. Intolerance for others' beliefs, total and absolute faith(*) in his own beliefs(*), anger and perhaps even hatred were the parallels I could see between Condell and a suicide bomber recoding his last message. Not his clothing, weapon or the choice of dual-purpose technology he uses to keep his trousers up. I'm afraid you're taking me too literally Hamilton Saint. See my previous post - I used the term Fundamentalist because when placing it next to Atheist it's oxymoronic. I meant it to be discordant and to challenge a keen eye - and it did. But now that we agree that I'm using the term outside of its literal meaning, I still see parallels, not equivalence, between your religious fundamentalists and my "Fundamentalist Atheists"(*). I'll stretch you're definition to suggest that Fundamentalism is about not straying from a core set of beliefs or principles (your definition is more accurately Religious Fundamentalism to my mind). For such a fundamentalist, certain central tenets of their world view are not up to be challenged. They are immutable. To my mind, these Fundamentalist Atheists also hold their scientific facts as immutable. Their total faith(*) in their own scientific view of the world and the aggression and the anger with which they attack others' beliefs that do not conform to their science-derived world view, shows fundamentalist traits IMO. And I don't have a problem with his aggressive style. As I think I said above I think it's a brilliant monologue and he's arguing my case. I am an atheist but I'm a live-and-let-live-atheist (*) I'm using these terms to be intentionally provocative A good debate and perhaps one that we won't agree on. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread or via PM? Well back on topic and I'm off to read that last part of the Heartstone - the latest book in the Matthew Shardlake series.

In that case then I'm sorry that you can't see it Hamilton Saint. Whilst this thread is certainly not the right place for this discussion, perhaps I'll have one more go. If you changed the words of Pat Condell's brilliant but intolerant monologue, dressed him in khaki, wrapped an explosives belt around his waist and gave him an AK47, it could quite easily be the last recording of a suicide bomber as he ranted against the infidels before he went off to carry out an act of violence en route to meeting his blind watchmaker. http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4682-aggressive-atheism Obviously, that is where any parallel (if indeed there is one) stops.

I was trying to suggest that the devotion, passion and drive with which he attacks belief systems in the name of science; has a parallel in some of the more violent acts we see committed in the name of religious fundamentalism. It was meant to be oxymoronic - and perhaps a little humorous. Failed. For Dawkins, being an Atheist has almost become a religion in its own right - with him at the head of the church. Don't get me wrong, he's a clever bloke and I agree with many of the principles at the heart of his arguments, but I'm more than happy for others to believe what they want.

Richard Dawkins is a Fundementalist Atheist. It's not that I have an issue with his negative stance on religion and belief systems - I share some of those negative beliefs myself. The issue for me is that he comes across as so aggressive in his condemnation of religion. And I think that aggression damages his scientific argument. I found The God Delusion to be a fascinating and educational read but I was uncomfortable with its style. Dawkins is an eminent scientist and has done a lot to understand evolution at the cell level, and I would expect any scientist to lay out the facts and let us decide. Instead, his prejudices come through. He tries to maintain a scientific approach but ultimately his own views cloud the way that the material is presented. All this is odd considering, as I mentioned above, I come from the same fundamental (with a small f) position as Dawkins. Also started to read A Brief History of Time 3 times and each time had to give up. Each time I got to the second half of the book, which from memory moves from the study of the big to the small (quantum) world, my brain CTRL+ALT+DEL'd to protect me from melting down. I found QED by Richard Feynman and Schrodingers Kittens by John Gribbin to be much more accessible material on a subject which fascinates me.

outset