posted
is that even a phrase? Seemed like it at first, but now I'm thinking maybe not. Anyway, it was alright, I just about managed to manage myself, although somebody who I met only that last night was telling me that I was 'too negative' within like an hour. Great. Great, I thought. Great, I said, as I smashed her face through the glass table that sat between us. Thats really great. Thanks. Posts: 3834
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe you are too negative. We do a book about the power of positivity. It's called Positivity. Perhaps you should read it and follow the simple steps to improving your life.
Posts: 13759
| IP: Logged
posted
i think that louise has a whole library books about that kind of shit. I don't know. I don't 'feel' negative at the moment.... maybe it's just my language. It's like Max Schrender, father of the atomic bomb said: "From my misery and pessimism springs a righteous cleansing fire; bow before me lest you taste my wrath, you fucking dogs".
Posts: 3834
| IP: Logged
posted
According to one of the Amazon reviews our book is, like, too much effort man.
quote:This book is all about the science behind feeling positive, and doesn't make you actually feel positive, only bored. Well written, but too much hard work.
I was equally disappointed by A Brief History of Time, which had chapters on the science of time travel, but didn't actually make you travel through time.
Posts: 13759
| IP: Logged
posted
If you're interested in this, be sure to check out How To Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog, which will be hitting a bookstore near you this christmas. Alternatively, if you can't wait til then, Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide gives you the most in-depth, accessible introduction on the market.
Posts: 13759
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I can't work out why people are saying Nick Clegg came off on top last night. (fnar)
For my money if one person came out well from that it was Gordon Brown.
I can't work out the Nick Clegg thing either. Looks like the entire media has decided that he won outright, but he just looked silly to me. Cameron did his act of "I'm basically already in charge, which is what the people want, OK? Yah." and looked like a complete asshole. Brown is easily the most convincing as a leader and experienced politician (as John Sergeant pointed out on Question Time to general astonishment and disbelief), but so many people have decided it's "time for a change" that he could be Churchill and still lose (er, as Churchill did in 1945, in fact).
So, maybe they mean Clegg won outright because he doesn't look like a complete asshole and isn't Labour. That's not really winning.
I just hope it took Cameron down, but some people are claiming he did really well. Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
I looked at the beginners guide books on your online store. I love books like that, to nip in and out of subjects you'd never ordinarily have time to go through but want a taster. But then being sat on public transport with a book saying 'beginners guide' kind of sends off a beacon of 'this guy knows DICK about: x' Could you buy alternative covers that say 'Definately paid attention to reniassance art in college and isn't trying to make for it now'?
posted
I watched some of the debate last night. I didn't really think anyone 'won' in my eyes. Mostly it left me feeling that:
a. Nick Clegg: had an easy job of it here, pointing out that the 'other two' were bickering again, points thumb over shoulder to Brown and Cameron, smiles at audience, raises eyebrows. Repeating the same answer, slightly rephrased up to three times - possibly the hosts fault for going back to him when hes's already answered.
b. Gordon Brown: Kept trying to get his opponents to agree with him "and I think Nick agrees with me here.." tried a few attacks on Cameron.
c. Cameron: Mr Reasonable, agreeing with the others, didn't really seem to go on the attack much.
A lot of anecdotes, "I met a bloke in a school, who said blah blah blah and that's why we have to change so and so policy."
Mostly I just feel that all the politicians can answer any question given by the audience and sound sincere, give a satisfactory answer.
..but, it doesn't actually mean anything's going to get done does it?
posted
I got a bit hooked on this last night for some reason, and even watched an hour or two of follow-up on various channels after the main event. The approval lines (aka The Worms) were bewitching.
Paddy Ashdown said that Clegg had "something of the Obamas about him", but on my screen it looked more like Cameron did.
Posts: 14017
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: ..but, it doesn't actually mean anything's going to get done does it?
I went through a period a couple of years ago of really despising Labour, but one thing that has brought me back - to the point where I'm going to vote for them in May - is that they really have done things. Big, big progress in schools, the NHS and public transport, which I'm really surprised that they aren't blowing their own trumpet about.
I also believe that the way they handled the financial crisis was the right way for everyone and headed off what might have been a genuine disaster. They may have just postponed it, mind you, time will tell.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
I wasn't watching it but was, stupidly, following the comments on one of the BBC's HYS things. The reactions seemed to be:
:- ITV is rubbish and can't hire camera crews or producers that know what they're doing :- The presenter is rubbish :- This would be much better if it was just Question Time, with some good heckling :- They all just delivered sweeping generalisations that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. "It's time to sort the economy out." "Education and the NHS have got to be a priority." Etc. :- Nothing in the debate was relevant to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so all three had alienated three-quarters of the electorate :- Clegg won :- No, Cameron won :- Brown easily won :- I'm voting LibDem now! :- Look at Cameron's hair :- Bye bye Brown :- DC actually came across really well :- What a breath of fresh air Nick Clegg is :- I was actually quite impressed with Gordon Brown :- This has nothing to do with Scotland (repeatedly)
quote:Originally posted by mart: Nothing in the debate was relevant to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so all three had alienated three-quarters of the electorate
posted
Cuh, who gives a crap about scotland and wales? If they want to piss about having their own pretend little 'parliaments' then why do they expect their issues to be addressed by the wider government?
Anyway, I think it's interesting that very little has been said about the promises of parliamentary reform. In particular Brown's pledge to halve the size of the house of Lords, and abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.
Posts: 12222
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose if you compress the whole of the 90 minute debate into about 5 minutes worth of reading, then the Lib Dems do appear to come out looking at least as strong as Labour or the Tories.
posted
I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.
I'm talking about this Tory married couples' allowance here. Marriage may be a very good thing (apparently), but so is joining the Boy Scouts, or the local Round Table Club, or being a Help The Aged shop volunteer, but no one would suggest that those people get paid by the public purse for the duration of their membership. It's a voluntary status, marriage, which suits some people and doesn't suit others.
I realise that it also holds legal implications, mainly around Inheritance Tax, but what is the justification for an additional payment - not based on need like a disability allowance or a tax credit on low income - but based on a fictional status bestowed by a redundant, quasi-religious ceremony? Why not give the druids a special allowance? Or witches. And what if a witch married a druid? These are the issues people want discussed.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by mart: I think it got roundly derided when it was announced.
Yeah, well, anything that any of them say gets roundly derided. I was thinking more about someone actually challenging the legality of it. But I suppose it's only a manifesto policy, and is therefore completely meaningless anyway.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
Octavia
I hate Valentine's Day. Stupid commercialised crap
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: abolish hereditary peerships in favour of elected representatives.
I don't understand why anyone wants an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords as it stands is the one voice of sanity in government - they're not controlled by the whips, they're not saying whatever they think will get them elected, they're now largely people who've got to the top of their career tree on merit (the hereditary element was actually downsized a lot several years ago) and usually genuinely know what they're talking about. It's all very well saying it's unrepresentative but anyone who thinks MPs are representative has probably never met one. The House of Lords is the only thing that might actually represent the will of the people rather than the will of the party machine and the whips.
What I'd rather see is ministers who aren't MPs. MPs shouldn't be allowed to run ministries, they should be in charge of challenging the people who are running the ministries. Who should be people who actually understand the thing the ministry is supposed to be in charge of.
Posts: 3351
| IP: Logged
Octavia
I hate Valentine's Day. Stupid commercialised crap
posted
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'm kind of surprised no one (that I've heard about) has questioned the legality of giving an allowance to one group of people, basically because they have voluntarily joined a club.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic