@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
McDonalds outsells Heston Blumenthal. Does that make it better gastronomy?
An intellectual is a person whose work is primarily in the world of ideas and philosophy, I would not claim to be one myself. There are doctors who are intellectuals such as Raymond Tallis:
You know something? I do not give the merest scintilla of an iota WHAT you think.
I have, by the by, just been carousing with my exceptionally hot and sexy new 26 year old girlfriend.
I will remember this extraordinary passage in my life for two things. A late renaissance of Love. And Scotland's possible departure. Yet in 20 years time I bet I will look at the latter, and wonder why it mattered so much; the former will be a bright cherished memory til I die.
Life is short. Everyone should have more sex. Because we all die.
Actually you do care. I clearly hit a nerve.
You accuse David Cameron of class insecurity, but demonstrate far more yourself.
There's one question that i've always wanted to ask opponents of gay marriage; If one of your children were gay, and decided to get married, would you attend?
Simpler answer than for most people.
No, I do not have any children, but I do have godchildren.
No, I would not attend as it would be a desecration of the sacrament of marriage. Also, as the union would not produce any children, it would be a bloody waste of time and money.
So a marriage is only worth time and money if they produce children.
Should the law prevent the marriage of someone who is infertile? Would you refuse to attend the wedding of someone who is infertile.
There is no excuse for gay marriage being illegal. I couldn't give a flying fig what your "sacrament" says, a civil ceremony hasn't got a scintilla of resemblance to religion. I am an atheist who cares as much about religion as Richard Dawkins and I married my wife last year (and had a child this if its relevant to you), there was no hint of sacrament to my wedding as I don't believe or care about your fairy tales and neither does the law.
@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
McDonalds outsells Heston Blumenthal. Does that make it better gastronomy?
An intellectual is a person whose work is primarily in the world of ideas and philosophy, I would not claim to be one myself. There are doctors who are intellectuals such as Raymond Tallis:
You know something? I do not give the merest scintilla of an iota WHAT you think.
I have, by the by, just been carousing with my exceptionally hot and sexy new 26 year old girlfriend.
I will remember this extraordinary passage in my life for two things. A late renaissance of Love. And Scotland's possible departure. Yet in 20 years time I bet I will look at the latter, and wonder why it mattered so much; the former will be a bright cherished memory til I die.
Life is short. Everyone should have more sex. Because we all die.
"I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you got, Derek? You've got nothing! NOTHIIIING!"
I think the state of academic publishing is a clear demonstration of the market's attitude to intellectual works.
It would be a blessing if much academic publishing, in the humanities at least, went out of business. It is verbose obscurantism that no one in their right mind would buy, but is nevertheless forced down the throats of undergraduates.
@PAW " its a bit wifey, something is wrong and you have to guess. Well what has upset the benefit seeking alcoholics". I am not sure what you mean? let me get a few glasses and I will try to work it out.
@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
I think the state of academic publishing is a clear demonstration of the market's attitude to intellectual works.
Quite.
I studied Philosophy at UCL (and it was great fun, mainly for the drugs and parties, but also the late night chats about What It All Means). One of my tutors was this guy. Mark de Bretton Platts.
He was obviously very clever. A nice guy, too. Funny. Eloquent. I liked him. Yet he strived to be an intellectual, that was his ideal. As a result his life has been pointless. He has written books read by almost no-one, for the good reason that they are designed to be unreadable (to all but the cognoscenti). This unreadability, for him, proved how intellectual he was, but it also rendered his efforts otiose. He has touched no souls, changed no opinions, made no impact. Everything he did was almost instantly forgotten.
He didn't make any money either.
Don't betray your hedonist principles Sean. If he was achieving his ideal then he was probably happy, which would be a point to life in itself (even if his path to happiness was different from yours).
"This is the book that turned on a generation of philosophers of language--turned them on to the Davidsonian program, that is... More than that, he surveyed a number of natural language constructions, showing how they could be handled in such a framework, and thereby mapping out the landscape of what has since become a full-blown philosophical research program." Peter Ludlow, State University of New York at Stony Brook"
I think it is the attempt to mimic the hard sciences that has made the arts and crafts so impenetrable. If you want to see the most extreme examples look at the papers from Havard Business School, where back of a postage stamp ideas are described in mathematics.
Thursday's weather forecast folr has improved - now expecting minimal rain and a clear dry and reasonably warm evening in the East, a little rain in Glasgow and slightly more in Aberdeen/NE Scotland.
@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
I think the state of academic publishing is a clear demonstration of the market's attitude to intellectual works.
Quite.
I studied Philosophy at UCL (and it was great fun, mainly for the drugs and parties, but also the late night chats about What It All Means). One of my tutors was this guy. Mark de Bretton Platts.
He was obviously very clever. A nice guy, too. Funny. Eloquent. I liked him. Yet he strived to be an intellectual, that was his ideal. As a result his life has been pointless. He has written books read by almost no-one, for the good reason that they are designed to be unreadable (to all but the cognoscenti). This unreadability, for him, proved how intellectual he was, but it also rendered his efforts otiose. He has touched no souls, changed no opinions, made no impact. Everything he did was almost instantly forgotten.
He didn't make any money either.
Don't betray your hedonist principles Sean. If he was achieving his ideal then he was probably happy, which would be a point to life in itself (even if his path to happiness was different from yours).
Fair point. However I would then adduce the various poets I know who all regret their career choice.
Poetry is basically dead. Yet there are still people teaching it, and learning it, and writing it, and still, unbelievably, trying to make a career of it. The art of poetry is only sustained by the tax-money we all pay to employ professors of poetry who then teach students of poetry.
Without that support, poetry would die tomorrow. It is the essence of a dead art, like illuminating manuscripts, or religious plainsong, or Gnostic theology in 4th century Alexandria.
I am, by the way, quite drunk. And quite happy. And not sure what point I'm making. But at least we're not talking about SCOTLAND.
The list of people with regrets about their career choices is long and widespread.
With poetry you have a massively successful closely related (or you could make the case that they blur indistinguishably into each other at the boundary) art form (i.e. rap) that traditional academic poetry generally does its best to ignore.
There's one question that i've always wanted to ask opponents of gay marriage; If one of your children were gay, and decided to get married, would you attend?
Simpler answer than for most people.
No, I do not have any children, but I do have godchildren.
No, I would not attend as it would be a desecration of the sacrament of marriage. Also, as the union would not produce any children, it would be a bloody waste of time and money.
So a marriage is only worth time and money if they produce children.
Should the law prevent the marriage of someone who is infertile? Would you refuse to attend the wedding of someone who is infertile.
There is no excuse for gay marriage being illegal. I couldn't give a flying fig what your "sacrament" says, a civil ceremony hasn't got a scintilla of resemblance to religion. I am an atheist who cares as much about religion as Richard Dawkins and I married my wife last year (and had a child this if its relevant to you), there was no hint of sacrament to my wedding as I don't believe or care about your fairy tales and neither does the law.
Clearly you do not understand what a godparent's duties are. It is a religious position, so it is rather bizarre to criticise my taking a religious position over my godchildren.
For the non-religious (such as yourself), matrimony literally means "mother-making", so yep, it's all about procreation.
As for your point about infertility, I can take the view that miracles can happen (Elisabeth, cousin of Mary, becoming pregnant), but the rationalist cannot. So perhaps you should have advanced years marriages banned.
Finally, don't you see the irony of citing a world-famous biologist, but arguing vehemently against the biological facts of life.
PS. Congratulations on your new child. Need a godparent?
As for your point about infertility, I can take the view that miracles can happen (Elisabeth, cousin of Mary, becoming pregnant), but the rationalist cannot.
@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
McDonalds outsells Heston Blumenthal. Does that make it better gastronomy?
An intellectual is a person whose work is primarily in the world of ideas and philosophy, I would not claim to be one myself. There are doctors who are intellectuals such as Raymond Tallis:
You know something? I do not give the merest scintilla of an iota WHAT you think.
I have, by the by, just been carousing with my exceptionally hot and sexy new 26 year old girlfriend.
I will remember this extraordinary passage in my life for two things. A late renaissance of Love. And Scotland's possible departure. Yet in 20 years time I bet I will look at the latter, and wonder why it mattered so much; the former will be a bright cherished memory til I die.
Life is short. Everyone should have more sex. Because we all die.
"I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you got, Derek? You've got nothing! NOTHIIIING!"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk
Zoolander!! Surely one of the funniest films ever made. Vastly under-rated. A work of art!
It gets 6.6 on IMDB! A disgrace. The public are morons.
"The Queen made a rare intervention on the political stage when she expressed the hope that voters will "think very carefully about the future" before the Scottish independence referendum on Thursday."
There's one question that i've always wanted to ask opponents of gay marriage; If one of your children were gay, and decided to get married, would you attend?
Simpler answer than for most people.
No, I do not have any children, but I do have godchildren.
No, I would not attend as it would be a desecration of the sacrament of marriage. Also, as the union would not produce any children, it would be a bloody waste of time and money.
So a marriage is only worth time and money if they produce children.
Should the law prevent the marriage of someone who is infertile? Would you refuse to attend the wedding of someone who is infertile.
There is no excuse for gay marriage being illegal. I couldn't give a flying fig what your "sacrament" says, a civil ceremony hasn't got a scintilla of resemblance to religion. I am an atheist who cares as much about religion as Richard Dawkins and I married my wife last year (and had a child this if its relevant to you), there was no hint of sacrament to my wedding as I don't believe or care about your fairy tales and neither does the law.
Clearly you do not understand what a godparent's duties are. It is a religious position, so it is rather bizarre to criticise my taking a religious position over my godchildren.
For the non-religious (such as yourself), matrimony literally means "mother-making", so yep, it's all about procreation.
As for your point about infertility, I can take the view that miracles can happen (Elisabeth, cousin of Mary, becoming pregnant), but the rationalist cannot. So perhaps you should have advanced years marriages banned.
Finally, don't you see the irony of citing a world-famous biologist, but arguing vehemently against the biological facts of life.
PS. Congratulations on your new child. Need a godparent?
I couldn't care less what position you take in the privacy of your own church. When you want to affect the LAW though then that stops being a religious matter. The laws of marriage have nothing to do with religion which is why I as an atheist can get married in a purely CIVIL marriage. Marriage is not a holy sacrament, it is a civil contract. Your religion can pronounce whatever claptrap you want to believe in and you are free to believe and follow that within the confines of the law. There is no need for you to enforce your hatred onto others though. Excommunicate sinners from your faith if you want, but don't make it illegal.
As for the biological facts of life, I am doing no such thing. The biological facts of life have nothing to do with the debate over gay marriage. In fact gay animals have been shown to exist in nature and gay people are entirely natural and it has been argued serve an evolutionary purpose in furthering their families genetics.
"As a love-letter to an adopted country goes, Portuguese academic João Magueijo's missive to Britain is perhaps somewhat lacking in affection. The Imperial College physics professor slams English hygiene standards in his book which is dedicated to the Queen. "When you visit English homes, or the toilets at schools or in student lodgings, they are all so disgusting that even my grandmother's poultry cage is cleaner," he writes. He goes on to describe the nation as being one of the 'most rotten societies in the world' in a 188 page diatribe in which he also describes his hosts as 'violent animals'. The 47-year-old academic wrote Bifes Mal Pasados (Undercooked Beef) as a response to what he describes as 'pathologically violent' English culture."
Latin temperament, when I was a very young lecturer at Imperial - mathematics - greek Nick had to make a public apology in the common room almost every week.
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Yes Nick - I understand that - and I have no reason to think the Queen does interfere.
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
Agreed. But I'm basically a republican who doesn't mind the current arrangement too much. I guess a keen monarchist might feel that keeping the formal side going at the same level was necessary to avoid a slippery slope? Do we have any keen monarchists here?
The time for all us proud English republicans will come,Nick.The current Queen Elizabeth The Second is an old lady who polls pretty well with the masses.Her son Charles The Third ,CTT,is a different matter altogether.Even the loyal BBC will not be able to hide the wealth and privilege of the unelected.
"As a love-letter to an adopted country goes, Portuguese academic João Magueijo's missive to Britain is perhaps somewhat lacking in affection. The Imperial College physics professor slams English hygiene standards in his book which is dedicated to the Queen. "When you visit English homes, or the toilets at schools or in student lodgings, they are all so disgusting that even my grandmother's poultry cage is cleaner," he writes. He goes on to describe the nation as being one of the 'most rotten societies in the world' in a 188 page diatribe in which he also describes his hosts as 'violent animals'. The 47-year-old academic wrote Bifes Mal Pasados (Undercooked Beef) as a response to what he describes as 'pathologically violent' English culture."
It was profitable when selling phones on contracts from EE and Vodaphone on some sort of commission presumably. But now they have cancelled where will it be able to get its business from?
If there is still a viable business model there then someone anong similar lines to Alchemy will buy the company out of administration.
"The Queen made a rare intervention on the political stage when she expressed the hope that voters will "think very carefully about the future" before the Scottish independence referendum on Thursday."
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Yes Nick - I understand that - and I have no reason to think the Queen does interfere.
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Yes Nick - I understand that - and I have no reason to think the Queen does interfere.
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
She does not see the Canadian or Australian PM weekly. But she is head of state of those countries. Scotland would be an independent country in the commonwealth if it wants with a governor general if it wants. Why if it wants to be independent so would Scotland want its PM running down to London to pay homage to the Queen.
Comments
You accuse David Cameron of class insecurity, but demonstrate far more yourself.
Who knows, but picto/celtic blood is not often rational when it feels you are taking the piss?
;-)
Should the law prevent the marriage of someone who is infertile?
Would you refuse to attend the wedding of someone who is infertile.
There is no excuse for gay marriage being illegal. I couldn't give a flying fig what your "sacrament" says, a civil ceremony hasn't got a scintilla of resemblance to religion. I am an atheist who cares as much about religion as Richard Dawkins and I married my wife last year (and had a child this if its relevant to you), there was no hint of sacrament to my wedding as I don't believe or care about your fairy tales and neither does the law.
The logical market?
Would you care to expand on this theory?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOrI6uqS-vk
" its a bit wifey, something is wrong and you have to guess. Well what has upset the benefit seeking alcoholics".
I am not sure what you mean? let me get a few glasses and I will try to work it out.
Yes.
Does something popular that sells well, denote truthfulness and "value"?
Yes 4.6
No 1.27
Matched £8.245 million
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387
It denotes a particular kind of value.
And how do you measure one value above the other?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Realities-Essay-Philosophical-Psychology/dp/0415058929/ref=la_B001HCXCOQ_1_2/276-2427508-7363009?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410738252&sr=1-2
Possibly not, but the myth is important. And the mythos is greater than reality
I shall compete with you in the honorable field of drunkenness and philosophy!
Usual rules apply?
As a result I'm predicting 85%+ for turnout.
With poetry you have a massively successful closely related (or you could make the case that they blur indistinguishably into each other at the boundary) art form (i.e. rap) that traditional academic poetry generally does its best to ignore.
For the non-religious (such as yourself), matrimony literally means "mother-making", so yep, it's all about procreation.
As for your point about infertility, I can take the view that miracles can happen (Elisabeth, cousin of Mary, becoming pregnant), but the rationalist cannot. So perhaps you should have advanced years marriages banned.
Finally, don't you see the irony of citing a world-famous biologist, but arguing vehemently against the biological facts of life.
PS. Congratulations on your new child. Need a godparent?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/14/scottish-independence-queen-remark-welcomed-no-vote
"Phones 4u said it remained profitable, with turnover of more than £1bn, underlying earnings of £105m in 2013 and significant cash in the bank."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/14/phones-4u-administration-contract-ee
As for the biological facts of life, I am doing no such thing. The biological facts of life have nothing to do with the debate over gay marriage. In fact gay animals have been shown to exist in nature and gay people are entirely natural and it has been argued serve an evolutionary purpose in furthering their families genetics.
The Imperial College physics professor slams English hygiene standards in his book which is dedicated to the Queen.
"When you visit English homes, or the toilets at schools or in student lodgings, they are all so disgusting that even my grandmother's poultry cage is cleaner," he writes.
He goes on to describe the nation as being one of the 'most rotten societies in the world' in a 188 page diatribe in which he also describes his hosts as 'violent animals'.
The 47-year-old academic wrote Bifes Mal Pasados (Undercooked Beef) as a response to what he describes as 'pathologically violent' English culture."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11095057/Top-Portuguese-academic-decries-filthy-English.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html
Polling station staff have been told to expect ‘confrontational behaviour"
(Same link as before).
If there is still a viable business model there then someone anong similar lines to Alchemy will buy the company out of administration.
Why if it wants to be independent so would Scotland want its PM running down to London to pay homage to the Queen.