I find anything that Fry does very interesting. He's increasingly becoming a self parody of himself through the British public schoolboy charicaturization but I still find his style and rhetoric engaging.
The second instalment of his America series was aired on BBC last night so I tuned in. It's quite interesting; albeit a little hasty. I won't make further comment on the show itself - that's for you to watch, or not. The thing that prompted this entry was a visit Fry made to the Forensic Anthropological Facility in Knoxville, Tennessee where they undertake detailed studies of human decomposition for forensic enlightenment.
It was an incredible place doing incredible work. Incredible in the very true sense of the word. The program scraped the surface of discovering the work done there and moved on but my mind lingered. Basically, people volunteer their bodies for the study when they've passed away and the bodies are then orchestrated to decay in a particular setting - a car, a bin, in a pile of leaves, etc.
They opened the lid of a wheelie bin to reveal the [significantly] decomposed remains of a corpse after "a few months". I just couldn't get away from the connection between this person's life (the memories they'd have, the people they'd met, the things they'd seen and done etc) and what they had become now. I think it just screamed at me the stark and unerring distinction between life and death - like a light switch- either on or off.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Friday, 17 October 2008
Malteser faux-pas!
I realise this is a pretty silly thing to get irritated by - but it's really annoyed me!!
The ASA have considered the verbal content of an advert promoting Maltesers and have found them to be in breach of advertising rules pertaining to low energy claims on products.
The advert involved a conversation between two supposd employees in an office whereupon one hands the other a single Malteser and comments that, in itself, it contains less than 11 calories.
The ASA thought this claim insinuated a healthy or 'low energy' connotation and broke advertising rules. What?! Has the world gone mad??! A statement of FACT was made. Do the public (and their apparent inherent stupidity) need protecting from facts in adverts?! Absolutely ludicrous!
It must have been a quiet year at the ASA.
The ASA have considered the verbal content of an advert promoting Maltesers and have found them to be in breach of advertising rules pertaining to low energy claims on products.
The advert involved a conversation between two supposd employees in an office whereupon one hands the other a single Malteser and comments that, in itself, it contains less than 11 calories.
The ASA thought this claim insinuated a healthy or 'low energy' connotation and broke advertising rules. What?! Has the world gone mad??! A statement of FACT was made. Do the public (and their apparent inherent stupidity) need protecting from facts in adverts?! Absolutely ludicrous!
It must have been a quiet year at the ASA.
Obama v McCain
It was interesting, last night, to watch the BBC Newsnight special on the final televised debate between the two presidential candidates in the US election.
From early on in the race, I've liked Barak Obama. He's fresh, sharp and seemingly astute. As a stark contrast, in last night's debate, John McCain presented himself and his ideas really poorly - he looked frail, bumbled through ideas and proposals, flapped in futile efforts to retort criticisms levelled by his running 'mate', and made repetetive, petty jibes at Obama.
Obama was unphased. He looked confident, presented his ideas and arguments convincingly and succinctly.
I truly hope the right result prevails. I have two major concerns though. Firstly, I hope that enough intelligent Americans interpret the campaign's manifestos accurately and make the right choice. That might sound patronising, but a majority* voted in George 'Dubya' Bush (twice?!) and many of them supported his subsequent 8 years work! It's worrying to consider where the mindset is of those millions of voters..
Secondly, if Obama does win the race, I fear for his safety. In a nation of gun-toters (where high school shootings have become historical recurrences rather than isolated exceptions) it is surely vexing to contemplate the security and personal vulnerability of a prominent and powerful political incumbant of a distinct racial constitution.
I think (*read: hope) that sense will prevail and Obama will ultimately succeed. It's going to make interesting viewing/news in the meantime.
* Majority - in terms of the numbers required to win; assuming they were obtained legitimately!
From early on in the race, I've liked Barak Obama. He's fresh, sharp and seemingly astute. As a stark contrast, in last night's debate, John McCain presented himself and his ideas really poorly - he looked frail, bumbled through ideas and proposals, flapped in futile efforts to retort criticisms levelled by his running 'mate', and made repetetive, petty jibes at Obama.
Obama was unphased. He looked confident, presented his ideas and arguments convincingly and succinctly.
I truly hope the right result prevails. I have two major concerns though. Firstly, I hope that enough intelligent Americans interpret the campaign's manifestos accurately and make the right choice. That might sound patronising, but a majority* voted in George 'Dubya' Bush (twice?!) and many of them supported his subsequent 8 years work! It's worrying to consider where the mindset is of those millions of voters..
Secondly, if Obama does win the race, I fear for his safety. In a nation of gun-toters (where high school shootings have become historical recurrences rather than isolated exceptions) it is surely vexing to contemplate the security and personal vulnerability of a prominent and powerful political incumbant of a distinct racial constitution.
I think (*read: hope) that sense will prevail and Obama will ultimately succeed. It's going to make interesting viewing/news in the meantime.
* Majority - in terms of the numbers required to win; assuming they were obtained legitimately!
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Keith
I watched a film today called Keith.
I didn't know what to expect as I didn't know the plot or any of the actors so it was on a complete whim.
It turned out that I really enjoyed it. It focussed on the bits so many mainstream hollywood high school films don't and ignored the stuff those films are [unfortunately] filled with to make their 1h35m quota!..
It didn't try to force the emotional premise upon you; rather it let you interpret what you were watching. The lead role of Keith was handled brilliantly [did someone say DiCaprio in Basketball Diaries?].
If you get the chance, watch it. 7.5/10
I didn't know what to expect as I didn't know the plot or any of the actors so it was on a complete whim.
It turned out that I really enjoyed it. It focussed on the bits so many mainstream hollywood high school films don't and ignored the stuff those films are [unfortunately] filled with to make their 1h35m quota!..
It didn't try to force the emotional premise upon you; rather it let you interpret what you were watching. The lead role of Keith was handled brilliantly [did someone say DiCaprio in Basketball Diaries?].
If you get the chance, watch it. 7.5/10
Spiders..
I'm sat in my office looking out at the rain showering down over the garden. Gracing a corner of the widow through which I look is a spider, sitting happily in his web.
Why are spiders so horrible? I absolutely hate them: the way they look, the way they move, the way they dispatch their prey, everything! I realise arachnophobia is a quite common trait in people but why? Why are so many people fearful of spiders compared to any one of a number of other insects, bugs, creatures or animals?
Why do I loathe and fear spiders so much but have absolutely no animosity towards craneflies? I must surely blame direct nurtural influences from my immediate family. It just seems peculiar that I can be 'made' to fear spiders but not, say, heights?
Either way - spiders.. ugh!
Why are spiders so horrible? I absolutely hate them: the way they look, the way they move, the way they dispatch their prey, everything! I realise arachnophobia is a quite common trait in people but why? Why are so many people fearful of spiders compared to any one of a number of other insects, bugs, creatures or animals?
Why do I loathe and fear spiders so much but have absolutely no animosity towards craneflies? I must surely blame direct nurtural influences from my immediate family. It just seems peculiar that I can be 'made' to fear spiders but not, say, heights?
Either way - spiders.. ugh!
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Surf's up!
After the recent economic meltdown I'm waxing up my financial surfboard ready to surf the waves of recovery that will inevitably come!
The boom and bust ecomonic climate we're currently swept up in makes for some exciting and prosperous times - in investment terms.
It was always going to happen.. The asset:debt ratios of large financial institutions were always timebombs. 120% mortgages, sub-primes etc all contributed to an ever more precariously stacked pyramid of cards which was destined from the start to collapse but while huge rewards were being being gleaned by unscrupulous city slickers; the cards were just placed more and more carefully. The unfortunate thing is that so much of the profiteering has come at the taxpayers expense.
Anyway, now the bubble has well and truly burst there will be some glorious opportunities to capitalise on the market's eventual recovery. In recent days some shares have experienced enormous swings in fortune - so I'm preparing myself to sit, click and [hopefully] win!
The boom and bust ecomonic climate we're currently swept up in makes for some exciting and prosperous times - in investment terms.
It was always going to happen.. The asset:debt ratios of large financial institutions were always timebombs. 120% mortgages, sub-primes etc all contributed to an ever more precariously stacked pyramid of cards which was destined from the start to collapse but while huge rewards were being being gleaned by unscrupulous city slickers; the cards were just placed more and more carefully. The unfortunate thing is that so much of the profiteering has come at the taxpayers expense.
Anyway, now the bubble has well and truly burst there will be some glorious opportunities to capitalise on the market's eventual recovery. In recent days some shares have experienced enormous swings in fortune - so I'm preparing myself to sit, click and [hopefully] win!
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Postman Pat
I read, this morning, that Postman Pat has been 'madeover'* to be 21st Century friendly.
This is terribly sad! I have the fondest memories of Pat, haplessly negotiating the narrow lanes and dry-stone walls of Greendale in his little red van accompanied by the cute - but all-knowing - Jess. Now he's parachuting parcels from his helicopter!?!
The solution is simple. Don't mess with it. I was happy that Pat and Jess resided in the nostalgic halls of 80s childrens television. If you want a new postal-based cartoon series - invent one! Don't bastardise my fond memories!
* Another thing the BBC is to blame for! Everytime I hear the word 'makeover' I instinctively picture cheeky Scouse MDF-lover Craig (of Big Brother fame) knocking up some shelves under the witless direction of Carol Smilie or Lawrence 'the Ponce' Bowen..
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
BBC losing its 'touch'?
For some years now I've felt the BBC have been losing their grip on producing quality television programmes. That's not to say I don't welcome the diversity to cater for all tastes - more that they churn out cheap, easy, tabloid crap too often.
The "reality TV" boom stated the steady decline. Shows like Fame Academy echoing ITV's contemporary slop called Pop Idol. Since then, ITV has - predictably - excelled itself at making dross television with X Factor, Britain's Got Talent, Jordan and Peter, Love Island, Jungle Get me outta here, etc etc. The barometer of truly shit television remains, as always, the phone/text vote to determine the fate of a particular beleaguered celebrity or Joe Public.
The BBC has witnessed this reality/vote TV growth and jumped on the bubblegum-for-the-brain bandwagon. Half-baked celebrities prancing in sequin-adorned Lycra - please!
Many will say "If you don't like it, don't watch it" - which is fine. But I've highlighted above the prolific dirge of this rubbish so, short of turning the television off altogether, how can one avoid it while still enjoying a small sense of value from the license fee?
My problem with the BBC, however, goes further than this. The programmes the corporation used to 'do' quite well are now being produced and conceived with the afore-mentioned bubblegum-tabloid mindset. An edition of Panorama I watched yesterday on iPlayer felt like a Sun / Daily Mail collaboration being read aloud in an effort to scare-monger the viewing masses. The same pathetic techniques adopted on their reality/vote schedules are being plied to supposedly informative programmes in an effort to evoke the same mis-guided emotive reactions.
I can vaguely recall The Day Today satiring the worst of the world's television news at the time by flashing up words on the headlines like "Warning!", "The end is nigh", "Beginning of the end", etc. The BBC is sadly doing this all too well now.
Take the substance of The Sun, the journalistic bent of the Mail and use the world's best medium to spoon-feed it to the widest possible audience...
The "reality TV" boom stated the steady decline. Shows like Fame Academy echoing ITV's contemporary slop called Pop Idol. Since then, ITV has - predictably - excelled itself at making dross television with X Factor, Britain's Got Talent, Jordan and Peter, Love Island, Jungle Get me outta here, etc etc. The barometer of truly shit television remains, as always, the phone/text vote to determine the fate of a particular beleaguered celebrity or Joe Public.
The BBC has witnessed this reality/vote TV growth and jumped on the bubblegum-for-the-brain bandwagon. Half-baked celebrities prancing in sequin-adorned Lycra - please!
Many will say "If you don't like it, don't watch it" - which is fine. But I've highlighted above the prolific dirge of this rubbish so, short of turning the television off altogether, how can one avoid it while still enjoying a small sense of value from the license fee?
My problem with the BBC, however, goes further than this. The programmes the corporation used to 'do' quite well are now being produced and conceived with the afore-mentioned bubblegum-tabloid mindset. An edition of Panorama I watched yesterday on iPlayer felt like a Sun / Daily Mail collaboration being read aloud in an effort to scare-monger the viewing masses. The same pathetic techniques adopted on their reality/vote schedules are being plied to supposedly informative programmes in an effort to evoke the same mis-guided emotive reactions.
I can vaguely recall The Day Today satiring the worst of the world's television news at the time by flashing up words on the headlines like "Warning!", "The end is nigh", "Beginning of the end", etc. The BBC is sadly doing this all too well now.
Take the substance of The Sun, the journalistic bent of the Mail and use the world's best medium to spoon-feed it to the widest possible audience...
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Creationism vs Evolution?
The creationism vs evolution argument has run for some time now. For some reason, it has become a more eminent and fervently debated issue in the past couple of years.
For some peculiar reason, I find the forceful postulation of creationism quite irritating. I realise that Darwin's "theory" of evolution through natural selection is probably not flawless but it does explain and account for the over-riding evidence available.
I don't dislike creationism purely on the basis that it is religious (and I shy away from anything that argues points from religious perspectives) - more, I disapprove of the fact that if creationism were an accurate description of life as we know it, then most of science itself is erroneous - cosmology, biology, chemistry, geology, etc.
The additional 'irritation' for me is provided in the homo erectus guise of Dr Richard Dawkins. I support 99% of his argument and welcome the work he does, but I cant possibly uphold his contemptuous attitude towards any non-supporter of evolution theory. I'd much prefer for him to propound his (Darwin's) case on evidence, fact and corroborating scientific argument rather than the razzmatazz of arguing or rowing with opponents (as was witnessed in his recent channel 4 offering - The Genius of Charles Darwin).
Perhaps I'm being a little unfair on Dr Dawkins. I just feel that in order to argue against other people's ideas or opinions you first need to open yourself up to them and embrace the basis of their misunderstanding.
I might be wrong in my support of evolution. But, I prefer to trust the countless arms of science that provide archaeological, geological, cosmological and geographical evidence [among many others] to suggest that the universe (and, indeed, our world) is very much older than 6,000 years! - There lies the first (and the biggest) hurdle for me to scale before I could ever contemplate the substance of creationism.
As for teaching it in schools?! - The only value I can envisage is to draw parallels with the 'world is flat' theory and how the contemporary ridiculousness of creationism might very well suffer the same 'egg on face' fate..
For some peculiar reason, I find the forceful postulation of creationism quite irritating. I realise that Darwin's "theory" of evolution through natural selection is probably not flawless but it does explain and account for the over-riding evidence available.
I don't dislike creationism purely on the basis that it is religious (and I shy away from anything that argues points from religious perspectives) - more, I disapprove of the fact that if creationism were an accurate description of life as we know it, then most of science itself is erroneous - cosmology, biology, chemistry, geology, etc.
The additional 'irritation' for me is provided in the homo erectus guise of Dr Richard Dawkins. I support 99% of his argument and welcome the work he does, but I cant possibly uphold his contemptuous attitude towards any non-supporter of evolution theory. I'd much prefer for him to propound his (Darwin's) case on evidence, fact and corroborating scientific argument rather than the razzmatazz of arguing or rowing with opponents (as was witnessed in his recent channel 4 offering - The Genius of Charles Darwin).
Perhaps I'm being a little unfair on Dr Dawkins. I just feel that in order to argue against other people's ideas or opinions you first need to open yourself up to them and embrace the basis of their misunderstanding.
I might be wrong in my support of evolution. But, I prefer to trust the countless arms of science that provide archaeological, geological, cosmological and geographical evidence [among many others] to suggest that the universe (and, indeed, our world) is very much older than 6,000 years! - There lies the first (and the biggest) hurdle for me to scale before I could ever contemplate the substance of creationism.
As for teaching it in schools?! - The only value I can envisage is to draw parallels with the 'world is flat' theory and how the contemporary ridiculousness of creationism might very well suffer the same 'egg on face' fate..
Thursday, 11 September 2008
LHC @ CERN
This week has been very exciting indeed! I've monitored, closely, the progress of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at the CERN facility in Geneva for some time. A series of penny farthing type tubular arrangements have been installed underground at the French/Swiss border accelerating two opposing beams of protons in order to collide their paths at strategic positions. Using incredibly sensitive hardware sensors, the collisions will be recorded and resulting collateral fragments of matter will be analysed.
It is impossible to envisage the proton beam 'packet' travelling - when fully accelerated - 11,000 times around the 27km ring every second [99.9999% the speed of light].
Much excitement has been aroused surrounding the potential for the LHC to 'discover' [or at least provide evidence of the existance of] the Higgs Boson particle - a particle imagined to be responsible for giving mass to other particles in the universe. Personally, I have never liked the concept and have felt for some years like the elusive Higgs was an easy way to explain away the inauguration of mass. I can't wait to see if answers are provided one way or the other, though.
The most exciting thing for me is the potential light the experimentations might shed on dark energy and dark matter.
Whatever happens, it feels like a precipice of breakthrough for me and I'm very excited..
It is impossible to envisage the proton beam 'packet' travelling - when fully accelerated - 11,000 times around the 27km ring every second [99.9999% the speed of light].
Much excitement has been aroused surrounding the potential for the LHC to 'discover' [or at least provide evidence of the existance of] the Higgs Boson particle - a particle imagined to be responsible for giving mass to other particles in the universe. Personally, I have never liked the concept and have felt for some years like the elusive Higgs was an easy way to explain away the inauguration of mass. I can't wait to see if answers are provided one way or the other, though.
The most exciting thing for me is the potential light the experimentations might shed on dark energy and dark matter.
Whatever happens, it feels like a precipice of breakthrough for me and I'm very excited..
New gadget [update]
The new gadget is going to be imminently gracing the pages of ebay! As much as I love it; it's unfortunately too technological to work with my car. The bluetooth car-phone synchronisation software can't decipher the address book in my phone which is stored in the Symbian S60 platform.
Regretfully, I'm going to have to restore my old [but brilliantly functional] phone to it's former position. My car got along just fine with him.
All this has left me pondering whether Aston Martin's have a compatible bluetooth system for the Nokia e90...
Regretfully, I'm going to have to restore my old [but brilliantly functional] phone to it's former position. My car got along just fine with him.
All this has left me pondering whether Aston Martin's have a compatible bluetooth system for the Nokia e90...
Thursday, 7 August 2008
New gadget!
I haven't 'blogged' for ages, so here is a brief entry to break the silence.
I'm sat typing this on my new gadget; my Nokia E90 communicator. I'm joyfully puzzling my way through it's extensive technological features. These include;
- full worldwide integrated GPS
- full internet ability - youtube and iplayer included!
- mp3, multi-codec video player, radio etc
- 3.2mp camera (which will adequately service my needs)
- integrated webcam
- full office suite (word, excel, access, powerpoint, adobe pdf, etc)
I'll stop there. Listing further features will jeopardise N's 'geek mantle'!
Suffice to say, I'm happy!
I'm sat typing this on my new gadget; my Nokia E90 communicator. I'm joyfully puzzling my way through it's extensive technological features. These include;
- full worldwide integrated GPS
- full internet ability - youtube and iplayer included!
- mp3, multi-codec video player, radio etc
- 3.2mp camera (which will adequately service my needs)
- integrated webcam
- full office suite (word, excel, access, powerpoint, adobe pdf, etc)
I'll stop there. Listing further features will jeopardise N's 'geek mantle'!
Suffice to say, I'm happy!
Monday, 2 June 2008
Rihanna
I'm not really a 'pop' man but I quite like Rihanna (musically) and I love this latest video. I think her mannerisms and expressions suit the lyrics perfectly.
And isn't she just smashing?..
And isn't she just smashing?..
Monday, 26 May 2008
Interesting changes...
Parliament this week will be repealing parts of half-century old legislation which will make the practise of mediumship and clairvoyance subject to much closer scrutiny and potential prosecution for misrepresentation.
I am highly sceptical of all things 'ghost 'n ghouly' and I support the introduction of such legislative measures. More significantly, though, I wonder how far the provisions outlined will be challenged and stretched.
The legislation will force purveyors of paranormal services to advertise their expertise as "entertainment only" to prevent 'unsuspecting' punters from being lulled into thinking that chatting with the deceased is a dependable scientific practise. Most customers visiting clairvoyants probably share the consultant's belief in it's credibility so the legislative changes will largely have no effect on either party.
I do wonder, however, if aggreived mediums will pursue legal challenges against the legislation's application: citing - for instance - religious practitioners and a necessity for them to prove the existance of a god to vindicate their particular vocational persuasion.
I await Clairvoyants v. God at the Old Bailey...
I am highly sceptical of all things 'ghost 'n ghouly' and I support the introduction of such legislative measures. More significantly, though, I wonder how far the provisions outlined will be challenged and stretched.
The legislation will force purveyors of paranormal services to advertise their expertise as "entertainment only" to prevent 'unsuspecting' punters from being lulled into thinking that chatting with the deceased is a dependable scientific practise. Most customers visiting clairvoyants probably share the consultant's belief in it's credibility so the legislative changes will largely have no effect on either party.
I do wonder, however, if aggreived mediums will pursue legal challenges against the legislation's application: citing - for instance - religious practitioners and a necessity for them to prove the existance of a god to vindicate their particular vocational persuasion.
I await Clairvoyants v. God at the Old Bailey...
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Philosophical thought of the day
I have a large seashell collection, which I keep scattered on beaches all over the world
(© Steven Wright)
(© Steven Wright)
While people desperately try to be more powerful, more respected, get richer and own more 'things' - I found the above quote quite apt.
I suggest with each new "Rich List" they publish a "Poor list"; highlighting the world's most stark deprivation. Oh, but wait, it's not fashionable or aspirational to be poor. The societal machine works in such a way that you work as hard as you need to, for your own gain - at other's expense if necessary - to get bigger houses, more money and faster cars so that people can look on at how brilliant you are...
Medical ethics
Ethics is a peculiar arena.
I've been reading - with interest, this week - the proposals for sanctioning the experimental use of hybrid human-animal embryos and the reduction on pregnancy termination time-limits.
I often find - with such emotive and controversial subject matter - that the objections are difficult to comprehend. I, fairly obviously, have a legal bias towards many topical issues raised in the contemporary media and will often adopt the correct legal stance (out of habit) before considering any moral implications.
My problem (with the hybrid embryo proposals in particular) is that so many of the objections vociferated on the Radio or in the national press are arguments on "ethical" grounds.
"Ethical" - eth·i·cal - [eth-i-kuhl] –adjective
What is ethical? There is demonstrably no consensus on 'ethical' issues or debates would not be so divisive. It seems, to me, that very often ethical correctness is borne out of indoctrinated religious ideals. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those against the experimental utilisation of hybrid embryos are religious against those who vote in it's favour.
I'm not criticising religion per se. I am more concerned that, as we strive to diversify our population with a multitude of cultural and religious denominations, we are allowing politics and laws to be determined by an increasingly varied representation of religious beliefs. I'm not religiophobic. And I understand and respect the need to embrace everyone's beliefs. But not to the detriment of the majority who do not uphold such ideals.
Democracy will out in Parliament. But I reserve uncertainty over the interference of religion in law.
I've been reading - with interest, this week - the proposals for sanctioning the experimental use of hybrid human-animal embryos and the reduction on pregnancy termination time-limits.
I often find - with such emotive and controversial subject matter - that the objections are difficult to comprehend. I, fairly obviously, have a legal bias towards many topical issues raised in the contemporary media and will often adopt the correct legal stance (out of habit) before considering any moral implications.
My problem (with the hybrid embryo proposals in particular) is that so many of the objections vociferated on the Radio or in the national press are arguments on "ethical" grounds.
"Ethical" - eth·i·cal - [eth-i-kuhl] –adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession.
What is ethical? There is demonstrably no consensus on 'ethical' issues or debates would not be so divisive. It seems, to me, that very often ethical correctness is borne out of indoctrinated religious ideals. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those against the experimental utilisation of hybrid embryos are religious against those who vote in it's favour.
I'm not criticising religion per se. I am more concerned that, as we strive to diversify our population with a multitude of cultural and religious denominations, we are allowing politics and laws to be determined by an increasingly varied representation of religious beliefs. I'm not religiophobic. And I understand and respect the need to embrace everyone's beliefs. But not to the detriment of the majority who do not uphold such ideals.
Democracy will out in Parliament. But I reserve uncertainty over the interference of religion in law.
Crossing lives..
Events recently have prompted me to wonder how many people we interact with during the course of our lives who we could, given the opportunity, get along with really well - as partners, I mean.
I'm not just referring to fleeting glimpses of pretty girls across crowded city streets (although I suppose that is just as valid). More though, I'm thinking of other people's partners (or friends of friends) who you get on with really well. If we all, as individuals, were picked up, shaken about and re-scattered it would be interesting who our friends would be, who we might have the chance of striking up relationships with etc.
Lately I've been pestered by the thought of what could have happened between myself and a particular someone if we were both stripped of our daily trappings (family, friends, commitments, etc.)
Hmm..
I'm not just referring to fleeting glimpses of pretty girls across crowded city streets (although I suppose that is just as valid). More though, I'm thinking of other people's partners (or friends of friends) who you get on with really well. If we all, as individuals, were picked up, shaken about and re-scattered it would be interesting who our friends would be, who we might have the chance of striking up relationships with etc.
Lately I've been pestered by the thought of what could have happened between myself and a particular someone if we were both stripped of our daily trappings (family, friends, commitments, etc.)
Hmm..
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Jangling nerves!
The countdown to tonight's game has begun. Two of the best European teams from the last decade meet in a Champions League semi-final and are afforded the opportunity to exhibit the most talented footballers on the planet.
Each teamsheet reads like a "Who's who" of football - Ronaldo, Messi, Rooney, Ronaldinho, Eto'o, Giggs, Henry, Scholes, Deco, Tevez etc etc.. It promises to be a magnificent display of exceptional footballing genius.
Sit back, wield your beer, and enjoy..
Each teamsheet reads like a "Who's who" of football - Ronaldo, Messi, Rooney, Ronaldinho, Eto'o, Giggs, Henry, Scholes, Deco, Tevez etc etc.. It promises to be a magnificent display of exceptional footballing genius.
Sit back, wield your beer, and enjoy..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)