Info and forum posts by 'kang'

RE: Countryside Alliance & Prejudice...

Quote:
So you are a Huntsman,game keeper, chemical expert and treasurer to the local hunt.................And I had you down as one of Orwells pigs,silly me
No - but I am capable of reading not just the news headlines but the facts behind them and then making up my own mind. Not all of us prop up the saloon bar and confuse the prejudices aired there as valid opinion.

Quote:
It had nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with Labours desire to control everything and ban as much of what they disapprove of as possible and in this particular instance walk away with a huge collective grin thinking that they`ve put one right up the upper classes.
So you`d support cruelty because it spites a political party? Boy, that`s a mature attitude. I presume that for the same reason you`re right behind the bombers in 7/7 and would love to have Saddam around for tea?

Quote:
However for the benefit of the Orwell appreciation society
Interesting how you tried to patronise me in an earlier post by implying I hadn`t read `Animal Farm` and when I demonstrated I`d read a lot more Orwell than you, suddenly out comes the sarcasm.

This item was edited on Monday, 18th July 2005, 09:58

RE: Countryside Alliance & Prejudice...

Quote:
Read Animal Farm by George Orwell

Thank you Snaps, I`ve read it, along with 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier, Keep The Aspidistra Flying and indeed the rest of Orwell`s work. What I meant was, you gave two vague arguments which could support either viewpoint and then finished with a literary reference that is commonly taken to mean that in a democracy some people still have more power than others (this relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is and also is a gross simplification of Orwell`s original point, but no matter). However, I couldn`t see how it added to the argument.

Quote:
How do you lefties know so much about a hobby and the people that take part in it,you seem to know how rich they are,what jobs they do or dont , and you all seem to be gun and chemical experts and know all whats involved in shooting and gassing wild animals
Oh dear, Zovirax, touched a raw nerve have we? And as a matter of fact, I do know what`s involved, thanks. And I`m not a leftie.

This item was edited on Sunday, 17th July 2005, 20:20

RE: Countryside Alliance & Prejudice...

Quote:
All animals are equal it`s just that some are more equal than others.

And your point is ... ?

RE: Countryside Alliance & Prejudice...

Quote:
Blood sports will never go away.

The same defeatist argument was made as a justification for not doing anything about bear bating, sending five year-old kids down mines, slavery, etc, etc. Apathy is no excuse.

As for whether a majority or minority approve of it, wake up and smell the bacon. Fox hunting is barbaric. Nobody is saying that foxes aren`t a nuisance to farmers, and unless you are a hug a tree veggie, then there is no objection at all to farmers shooting or gassing foxes. But finding the method most akin to imitating a pack animal is at best hopelessly antiquated and at worst bordering on mental illness. For those who think say that worse things happen in nature all the time, it`s curious how they wouldn`t be willing to give up their homes, live in the wild and eat food raw. But if you want to be `natural` then that is the representative state of humans for most of our species` existence.

Plus, it is a pastime for the idle very rich - how many people do you know who can take time off in the working week to go hunting, and afford the upkeep of a horse, etc? As for those honest working class folk who earn their livelihood from the `sport` I feel about the same level of sympathy as for those honest artisans who made their living working as the crew on slave ships or making shackles for disobedient slaves.

It`s a sad reflection of how much power the toffs yield that fox hunting wasn`t consigned to the history books fifty or more years ago.

RE: What r the IMDB 250 films?

Seen all but a couple of them, and only haven`t seen those because I thought they were total pants from the dscriptions.

RE: London is getting the Olympics!!

The thought of Seb Coe appearing on our screens for the next seven years doesn`t appeal much, and yet again the government has pulled the stops out for something that benefits London, but think of this - seven years of rubbing the French`s noses in it. :D

RE: Help - Need advice on Uni Results...

For what it`s worth, I`ve been on degree examination boards for the last twenty years, both at places where I`ve taught and also as an external examiner (i.e. checking on the standards at other unis). Contrary to all student myths, degree grades are not decided capriciously, and a great deal of time is spent on deciding final grades, particularly in borderline cases. I can`t comment on the specifics of this case, but the following may be of use:

(1) If your final grade is a simple average of all your marks, it can take a surprisingly large change in marks to shift you even one percentage point.

(2) I don`t know how your degree classification works, but a lot of grading schemes are geared to look at `exit velocity`. In other words, how you do in your final year may matter more than what you did in the earlier years (e.g. relatively few institutions even count first year work towards the final classification). This is usually expressed by a weighting of final year marks.

(3) In your final year, project work is generally weighted higher than other work (your uni may differ, so you need to check on this). So just looking at a simple average may be misleading.

And if you think ceremonies are boring for students, think what they are like for tutors. You only have to do it once ...

RE: Another god damn student having a moan :-D

This item was edited on Saturday, 23rd April 2005, 17:04

RE: Another god damn student having a moan :-D

Forget my posts, guys - was in a real grouch.

This item was edited on Saturday, 23rd April 2005, 17:07

RE: Best film never to win best film

Just one final comment.

I`m afraid there is a strong element of the `old guard`/clique/call it what you will on this forum and I think it`s growing. Some of you can make snide remarks about others and it`s considered to be witty. Others try the same sort of comment and it`s thread-cr***ing or whatever. It`s reminiscent of the sort of pub you don`t go twice to, where there`s the barman and his bunch of cronies around the bar who think they have carte blanche to be as rude as they like to anyone who walks in. But if someone bites back and shows they have opinions to and in some instances may know more and be brighter, then suddenly they are the antisocial ones.

Any comments I`ve ever made have only been at the same strength as those directed at me or others. It`s a great shame that when some of you get a taste of your own medicine instead of puffing up like outraged pigeons you don`t stop and think that you`re only being repaid in kind. And if you don`t like it, perhaps you should think about the effect you have on others.

RE: Best film never to win best film

Quote:

Just to say, Kang has massively edited and culled his post so some of my comment now look out of place. I must be right

Oh dear, you really are vain, aren`t you? I amended them because I thought the tone was unecessarily strong. It`s called consideration for others - most people might appreciate this, but you apparently think it`s a sign of victory when someone shows magnanimity.

Okay, 42%er you win - this forum is clearly best left to saloon bar philosophers and those who think a lads` mag culture is the norm. Enjoy your mighty empire. I`m out of here.

RE: Best film never to win best film

Quote:
Why does it wind you up so.

The comment wasn`t even about you, so why the long response? Sheesh, talk about being egocentric ...

Regarding the one or two spaces - the rule is optional and an irrelevance in this instance, since a lot of computers re-space anyway.

This item was edited on Tuesday, 22nd February 2005, 15:06

RE: Best film never to win best film

Quote:
SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Lost out to Forrest Gump. In the year which also had Pulp Fiction.


Sorry, but I think this is one occasion where the Oscars got it right.

This item was edited on Tuesday, 22nd February 2005, 16:45

RE: Best film never to win best film

One man`s meat ...

I`m personally amazed that the Oscars are taken seriously as a critical barometer. Based on winners over the years, I suspect the following `thought` process takes place in the archetypal Academy voter:

(1) was there a mainstream movie about someone physically handicapped overcoming adversity? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(2) was there a mainstream movie about someone mentally handicapped/ill overcoming adversity? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(3) was there someone really old starring in a movie who is likely to be dead in a couple of years and hasn`t won an Oscar yet? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(4) was there a mainstream movie over three hours long? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(5) was there a mainstream movie based on a heavyweight book that you never managed to get through but which arty-farty types tell you is really meaningful? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(6) was there a British small-budget production set in or around Edwardian or Elizabethan times? - vote for it

if not, then goto:

(7) make up your own mind, but on no account vote for anything that:

(i) makes you question anything about the American capitalist system
(ii) has subtitles

RE: Best film never to win best film

Quote:
I`m sure we can start our own arguement though.

Perhaps start with a discussion on why people never check their spelling?

RE: "Royal" Wedding - Official Thread

Quote:
registery (registry?) office

It`s register office - I know everyone says `registry office` but it`s inaccurate.

RE: watch what you eat!

Just to clarify matters - it`s just one brand of Worcester sauce made by Cross and Blackwell and another by Morrison`s (though only a specific bottle size) isn`t it? I don`t think it`s all Worcester sauce.

This item was edited on Sunday, 20th February 2005, 19:35

RE: Dark City - Any good?

Yes - a ton better than the Matrix (assuming you mean the Dark City that came out in 1998 and not one of several other films of the same name).

RE: Its the end of the post as we know it

Quote:
All the political parties favour the capital, not just Labour.

I agree - but don`t you think the present lot are rather more blatant about it?

RE: Its the end of the post as we know it

Quote:
On the up side for London residents (but cold comfort for the rest of us), they`ll wind up with a virtually free service because of the feeding frenzy between the companies.

Well that makes it alright then - I mean, so long as London isn`t inconvenienced, it must be good. >:(

Okay, plus points:

(1) competition can be good because it creates greater efficiency
(2) if subsidies are abolished, it might ram home to hotheads amongst e.g. Scottish nationalists how heavily basic services have been subsidised for the celtic fringes when a letter from Aberdeen to London costs 20 quid. It might stop them bleating so much about how the English have appropriated profits from North Sea oil, etc.

Minus points:

(1) we`ve seen from other attempts at denationalisation what a complete ****-up it can be (e.g. British Rail)
(2) it`s arguable that some parts of the infrastructure like the Royal Mail should be available to all - profit should be secondary. Competition is unlikely to assist in this.
(3) watch how after initial promises of `oh yes, of course we`ll service rural communities` these promises fall short. Think I`m exaggerrating? Look at the privatised bus companies.
(4) extra companies means a hell of a lot more stamps to collect for philatelists. :B
(5) Just who will have the spending power to set up post boxes and post offices everywhere? Answer - nobody. The big firms will cream off the profitable runs between big cities and leave Royal Mail with the unprofitable runs to the smaller towns and villages. The situation will thus get worse.

We had a tiny taste of what is likely to come in 1971 when there was a national postal stirke and the RM`s monopoly was temporarily suspended. Hundreds of companies sprang up to deliver mail. The most efficient delivered between a limited number of set points or solely worked very locally (i.e. at most within the boundaries of a town). Those attempting a wider delivery service either lost letters by the sackload or delivered them (literally) weeks late.

However, why should Tony `when I`m not kissing Bush`s **** I`m giving everything to London and the rest of you can **** off` Blair care? A government that can support the Millennium Dome when it was obvious it was already a disaster is capable of anything.

This item was edited on Friday, 18th February 2005, 17:27

RE: This Ken Livingstone thing

Quote:
Yes! I`m completely sick of the London-centric media going on about this, as though the story was somehow of national significance.

Normally I`d agree, but given the Olympic committee is in town, the repercussions could be worse than usual. Of course if it does prove damaging to the olympics bid it couldn`t possibly be the media`s fault for blowing somehting out of proportion. >:(

FWIW, I think that if the transcript is accurate, then KL should apologise for any unintentional offence caused. Being buttonholed by the press 24/7 must be infuriating, but he`s a big boy now and after all this time he should be able to cope, and regardless of the leanings of certain newspapers, there`s no excuse for being that offensive.

RE: UK Police visit Diana`s death scene again

Quote:
Good god, Kang, you really hate the Royals, don`t you?


I don`t, actually. I`ve no strong urge for a republic and I think it`s useful to have figureheads who are ostensibly non-political (i.e. unlike a president) to open hospitals, greet heads of state, etc. However, I have a strong dislike of fawning over them like they`re members of a favourite soap opera and I also think that for the obscene amount of money they have they could have the common sense to be discrete in their private lives. I have an expecial loathing of Diana whom I think was the worst of the lot and a prize hypocrite. I didn`t gloat when she died, I felt sorry for her kids, but I thought that a simple explanation of drunk driving at speed was an adequate explanation. Plus, let`s remember that neither she nor Mr Al-Fayed were wearing seat belts.

Looking back at the post it was strongly worded, but I`d just heard the following news item about an inquest in the Midlands. A man apparently sane and a devoted to his family threw his five year old daughter from the top of a tall multi-storey car park and then jumped to his death himself. That is all the attention that tragic set of events is ever likely to get. Compare that with rich divorced sloane fooling around with rich playboy and dying because their chauffeur was fried to the tonsils and they were too thick to wear seat belts, guess where my sympathies lie.

Perhaps I should have explained the context of my anger, and I`m happy to tone down the first post if anyone is truly offended.

RE: UK Police visit Diana`s death scene again

Rich sloane dies in car crash - so ****ing what? She was no longer a royal, showed ****-all interest in her kids (newsflash - taking them on well-publicised trips to theme parks and then ****ing off on boating trips with rich boyfriends during the school holidays does not constitute good parenting), and a public opinion poll the week she met with her accidental death showed an overwhelming majority of the public were fed up to the back teeth of her. The fact that a bunch of chavs now want her canonised and will cling to every half-witted conspiracy theory is their problem, not something the taxpayer should be throwing money at addressing.

The money that`s being thrown at this fatuous enquiry could house a tidy number of homeless families. However, this is just typical of Princess Spoilt`s whole existence since she became a royal - money thrown down the drain whilst people who should know better cling to an unrealistic image of her.

There, I feel better now.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 16th February 2005, 15:07

RE: Oscars 2005 Host announced...

So one embarrassing presenter has been replaced with another embarrassing presenter at an event that is nothing more than an overblown ego-w***.

The ability of the Oscars to identify true talent can be demonstrated in a single salutory lesson. Take a look at a `top 100` poll of films and then look at the number of Best Picture Oscars amongst them. >:( I rest my case.

Accordingly, why does it matter who hosts such an event? In any case, in terms of entertainment it`s a non-starter. Toe-curlingly embarrassing acceptance speeches, unfunny jokes, and predictable results. Sorry, but I think even the Generation Game offered more entertainment.

RE: Who wants to be the first to lick the stamp with the head of Queen Camilla on it??

Quote:
Aren`t all stamps self-adhesive now anyway?

No. First and second class definitives (the ones with just the Queen`s head on) are self-adhesive as are some of the special stamps (typically the Christmas stamps and the so-called `smilers`). However, most are still lick and stick.

Interestingly (well, if you like history it`s interesting) similar objections were raised when stamps were first introduced that people might not like the idea of licking royalty. It`s not widely known that when the penny black was introduced, pre-paid envelopes were offered in tandem for those that didn`t want to lick stamps. The pre-paid envelopes were widely used for several years but eventually fell out of use.

RE: Nobody mentioning the rugby...

Quote:
Perhaps the `football is for wimps` thing made them feel better though,eh ?

Personally I wouldn`t know. I got dragooned into playing rugby union because of my size (I was approaching six ft aged 12). I utterly hated union (the town was solidly rugby league, except for the grammar school I went to which insisted on playing union). Anyway, after several weeks of ****ing around at it I`d decided I`d had enough and I (deliberately) started apologising to players as I tackled them. The games master (fully paid up psycho) overheard me and went ballistic about not having the right attitude. I was sent in disgrace to play table tennis (not even soccer). This was supposed to be a dreadful publishment but (1) I really enjoyed it and (2) modesty aside, I turned out to be good at table tennis. I was thus allowed to carry on at ping pong whilst everyone else froze their assets outside. I`ve no idea whether I`d have been any good at soccer (though I doubt it based on my inability to kick a ball round the playground).

RE: Nobody mentioning the rugby...

Quote:
They were the sort that played it a couple of times at school,coz they were too clumsy for football,


Fascinating. At my school you were sent to play soccer if you were too much of a wimp to play rugby.

RE: Who wants to be the first to lick the stamp with the head of Queen Camilla on it??

Quote:

There are no stamps with Phil the Greek on so there is no reason to think that CPB will ever be on a stamp either!

Actually there are several with Phil the Greek on (e.g. the ones celebrating the silver wedding). However, I think it`s highly unlikely that the Royal Mail has any immediate plans for a Camilla and Big Ears stamp (and in any case, any stamp design has to be approved by QE and I can`t see Bessie going a bundle on the idea).

This item was edited on Monday, 14th February 2005, 11:59

RE: Nobody mentioning the rugby...

Quote:
Umpteen pseudo rugby `fans` (who probably couldn`t name the team`s line-up) started mumping when we insisted the TV channel was changed.

How to win friends and influence people: Lesson 1.

RE: KFC (READ THE WARNING)

No amount of bad pay justifies taking it out on other animals - human or non-human.

This item was edited on Sunday, 13th February 2005, 17:32