10% lead for Romney last time, although Obama carried it by 1% in 2008.
The usual health warnings needs to be attached for internal polls but it's certainly in line with recent published polling from several red states.
Indiana puzzles me. It seems much more Republican than the neighbouring Midwest states, which seem to be either toss ups or Democrat. Any ideas why? Are the demographics so different?
Essentially yes. Then again look at how over the past three cycles demographics have changed the map - New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. Added to which Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida are all trending blue.
My feeling is that Hillary will do well in the South. It has been Republican for years but she did well in the primaries there and will do well with African Americans and Hispanics. I do not think that Trump is the right sort of Republican for bible bashing white southerners. Too much the New York Yankee.
Trump won every southern state in the GOP primaries with the exception of Texas and Oklahoma which went for Cruz
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
I understand this and the rules were a fudge to get all nations on board. But Hawkeye claim they show it is accurate to a lot smaller margin than they use for the "umpires call". When you see that it would show half the ball hitting the stumps, either Hawkeye isn't accurate (which I don't believe is the case) or they should be giving that out.
Hawkeye in the footy for the goal line, they go with what it says, no margin of error, even if the ball was obscured.
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
It annoys me when batsman get upset with umpires call when the ball is clipping leg stump. They seem to think that umpire's call should mean "that's too close for the umpire to be giving it out in the first place, therefore not out."
My main insight from this piece is that Cambridge really churn out some duffers.
How very dare you madam. We've also produced some of country's finest, for example, Nick Clegg, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Sir Anthony Blunt.
Has Cambridge produced any top-rate politician since Pitt the Younger?
Define 'top-rate'.
I jest. Setting the bar at Pitt or better is not entirely reasonable.
Off the top of my head, all of the following holders of at least one Great Office were at Cambridge:
Stanley Baldwin Iain Macleod Ken Clarke Michael Howard Arthur Balfour Henry Campbell-Bannerman (postgraduate) Lord Palmerston (postgraduate)
I am sure there are more, but considering that includes the most electorally successful leader of all time, the first leader of a political party from a religious minority, the only philosopher ever to be PM and one of Britain's most famous war leaders, I think they've done OK.
I think Edinburgh is the only other university that has provided more than one PM.
It's not bad but were it a boat race, they'd be about 15 lengths back. Different question on Nobel Laureates, mind.
So they are about 150 lengths ahead on benefitting humanity then
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
It annoys me when batsman get upset with umpires call when the ball is clipping leg stump. They seem to think that umpire's call should mean "that's too close for the umpire to be giving it out in the first place, therefore not out."
That's surely just a reflection of the old "benefit of the doubt" flexibility that the umpire had?
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
It annoys me when batsman get upset with umpires call when the ball is clipping leg stump. They seem to think that umpire's call should mean "that's too close for the umpire to be giving it out in the first place, therefore not out."
That's surely just a reflection of the old "benefit of the doubt" flexibility that the umpire had?
But that's not the point of DRS. As ydoethur says it was brought in to get rid of the really bad decision. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't come in to DRS.
My main insight from this piece is that Cambridge really churn out some duffers.
How very dare you madam. We've also produced some of country's finest, for example, Nick Clegg, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Sir Anthony Blunt.
Has Cambridge produced any top-rate politician since Pitt the Younger?
Define 'top-rate'.
I jest. Setting the bar at Pitt or better is not entirely reasonable.
Off the top of my head, all of the following holders of at least one Great Office were at Cambridge:
Stanley Baldwin Iain Macleod Ken Clarke Michael Howard Arthur Balfour Henry Campbell-Bannerman (postgraduate) Lord Palmerston (postgraduate)
I am sure there are more, but considering that includes the most electorally successful leader of all time, the first leader of a political party from a religious minority, the only philosopher ever to be PM and one of Britain's most famous war leaders, I think they've done OK.
I think Edinburgh is the only other university that has provided more than one PM.
Which one is "one of Britain's most famous war leaders"?
Perhaps one improvement would be if you challenge and it is an "umpire's call", you don't lose that challenge.
That seems like a very unfair double whammey, you challenge, Hawkeye shows the umpire was most likely wrong but the decision won't change AND you lose a challenge as well.
10% lead for Romney last time, although Obama carried it by 1% in 2008.
The usual health warnings needs to be attached for internal polls but it's certainly in line with recent published polling from several red states.
Indiana puzzles me. It seems much more Republican than the neighbouring Midwest states, which seem to be either toss ups or Democrat. Any ideas why? Are the demographics so different?
Essentially yes. Then again look at how over the past three cycles demographics have changed the map - New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. Added to which Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida are all trending blue.
My feeling is that Hillary will do well in the South. It has been Republican for years but she did well in the primaries there and will do well with African Americans and Hispanics. I do not think that Trump is the right sort of Republican for bible bashing white southerners. Too much the New York Yankee.
Trump won every southern state in the GOP primaries with the exception of Texas and Oklahoma which went for Cruz
It is just about possible that Trump's VP choice, Mike Pence, aimed at shoring up the right-wing Christian vote, might put off some voters who like the fact that Trump is not a bible-basher.
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
It annoys me when batsman get upset with umpires call when the ball is clipping leg stump. They seem to think that umpire's call should mean "that's too close for the umpire to be giving it out in the first place, therefore not out."
That's surely just a reflection of the old "benefit of the doubt" flexibility that the umpire had?
But that's not the point of DRS. As ydoethur says it was brought in to get rid of the really bad decision. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't come in to DRS.
Yes, I agree with that entirely and have said so on other cricketing threads earlier in the season ... especially when Joel Wilson was scrabbling around as 3rd umpire for any tiny justification to confirm an England wicket.
It's to overturn the howlers. As it stands right now you can exploit the camera foreshortening effect and get just about any very low catch overturned through "doubt".
10% lead for Romney last time, although Obama carried it by 1% in 2008.
The usual health warnings needs to be attached for internal polls but it's certainly in line with recent published polling from several red states.
Indiana puzzles me. It seems much more Republican than the neighbouring Midwest states, which seem to be either toss ups or Democrat. Any ideas why? Are the demographics so different?
Essentially yes. Then again look at how over the past three cycles demographics have changed the map - New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. Added to which Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida are all trending blue.
My feeling is that Hillary will do well in the South. It has been Republican for years but she did well in the primaries there and will do well with African Americans and Hispanics. I do not think that Trump is the right sort of Republican for bible bashing white southerners. Too much the New York Yankee.
Trump won every southern state in the GOP primaries with the exception of Texas and Oklahoma which went for Cruz
It is just about possible that Trump's VP choice, Mike Pence, aimed at shoring up the right-wing Christian vote, might put off some voters who like the fact that Trump is not a bible-basher.
Perhaps but most people vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
I think the point about DRS is it's not designed to be perfect, merely to remove the completely dud decision: Hussain given out LBW having cut the ball for four in 1999 springs to mind. Umpire's call shows it was marginal and therefore there is insufficient evidence to say they were completely wrong.
It annoys me when batsman get upset with umpires call when the ball is clipping leg stump. They seem to think that umpire's call should mean "that's too close for the umpire to be giving it out in the first place, therefore not out."
That's surely just a reflection of the old "benefit of the doubt" flexibility that the umpire had?
But that's not the point of DRS. As ydoethur says it was brought in to get rid of the really bad decision. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't come in to DRS.
But if it's clipping leg or off it's not a bad decision, it's a close decision. Hawkeye can claim all they like - unlike in tennis or football, they only have the predicted track not the actual one, so I'm comfortable with saying there is a margin of error and it needs to be clearly hitting/missing to change a previously made decision.
As for it being a fudge, it was not fudged and that is why India still refuse to use it; it is not being used in the West Indies right now. Why the ICC doesn't tell them to grow up and use it I don't know. It can't be all that money they make for the game via the IPL, because that would be a silly reason.
Perhaps one improvement would be if you challenge and it is an "umpire's call", you don't lose that challenge.
That seems like a very unfair double whammey, you challenge, Hawkeye shows the umpire was most likely wrong but the decision won't change AND you lose a challenge as well.
Yes, at first glance I like that idea. Seems a good improvement.
My main insight from this piece is that Cambridge really churn out some duffers.
How very dare you madam. We've also produced some of country's finest, for example, Nick Clegg, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Sir Anthony Blunt.
Has Cambridge produced any top-rate politician since Pitt the Younger?
Define 'top-rate'.
I jest. Setting the bar at Pitt or better is not entirely reasonable.
Off the top of my head, all of the following holders of at least one Great Office were at Cambridge:
Stanley Baldwin Iain Macleod Ken Clarke Michael Howard Arthur Balfour Henry Campbell-Bannerman (postgraduate) Lord Palmerston (postgraduate)
I am sure there are more, but considering that includes the most electorally successful leader of all time, the first leader of a political party from a religious minority, the only philosopher ever to be PM and one of Britain's most famous war leaders, I think they've done OK.
I think Edinburgh is the only other university that has provided more than one PM.
Which one is "one of Britain's most famous war leaders"?
Did you sort out your organ problems, Doc?
Palmerston, Crimean War.
Well, it flopped a bit in verse three, but that was because I put a flat where I shouldn't. We had a very good climax in the fourth hymn though due to judicious use of the fingers.
Edit - I'm going to have to write comments like this for ever now, aren't I? The sacrifices you make for trying to cheer up somebody who's feeing a bit low!
Perhaps one improvement would be if you challenge and it is an "umpire's call", you don't lose that challenge.
That seems like a very unfair double whammey, you challenge, Hawkeye shows the umpire was most likely wrong but the decision won't change AND you lose a challenge as well.
That's what Beefy was just saying. But then DRS was brought in to get rid of the really bad decision. In practice, of course, that's not how the players use it, but that's not the ICC's fault. Yes that LBW shout was clipping the top of the stumps, but the umpire gave it not out so get on with the game.
What I would change is the no ball. This business of umpires checking the front foot when a wicket is taken has to stop. It's unfair that that mistake can be corrected, but the (admittedly rarer) case of a wicket taken off a wrongly called no ball cannot. So I would take the no ball out of the on field umpire's hands and give it to the third umpire. I know the batsmen in theory lose the benefit of hearing the call but that could be compensated for by giving a free hit off the ball following a no ball.
He has in fairness scored more runs in this match than the whole of the top five put together. And with the exception of Root they haven't even done any bowling!
Edit - drat, got my sums wrong. The top five have 151 between them across both innings so Mo has 11 fewer than they do.
He has in fairness scored more runs in this match than the whole of the top five put together. And with the exception of Root they haven't even done any bowling!
I know. And he batted well at Edgbaston. He just frustrates me, as he makes batting look so easy, looks so classy, then just gets lazy on a delivery.
I played with a WI international a number of years that was the same. He was incredibly talented, but you got the feeling he just got a bit bored. The one exception I remember was when the West Indies got thumped in a test, he turned up really pissed off, bowled in the high 80's, put two people in hospital (one poor guy got a riser that went glove, helmet, caught by third man) and then smashed it around the ground with ease.
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
Hawkeye predictions, just like opinion polls, have a margin of error.
I have to say I really don't like the DRS rules with "umpire's call". Either we trust Hawkeye is accurate or it isn't, and Hawkeye claim their testing (plus independent oversight) proves their tech is incredibly accurate.
I know in tennis they have full view of the ball, rather than "predicted" direction of travel, but there they go with whatever Hawkeye shows, not well it clipped the line so it is umpires call.
Hawkeye predictions, just like opinion polls, have a margin of error.
I know, but they claim via their testing (and independent oversight) that their MoE is really rather small...a hell of a lot smaller than the MoE used for umpire's call.
Half the width of the ball is a massive "error", they are far more accurate than that.
I'm not sure I would have used exactly the phraseology that Paul Lewis used but who's to say he's necessarily wrong?
Obviously Fox, Johnson and Davis should have a bonding weekend at Chevening to sort things out. Once they have established who gets to use the bathroom first, who does what with trade negotiations should be straightforward.
What a deeply unimpressive trio they are. The Tories are very lucky that Labour have made themselves unelectable. But lumbering the country with such preening lighweights makes Labour's implosion even more unforgiveable.
TBF although it's normally true that the opposition needs to be electable to discourage the government from doing things it dislikes, in this case the Prime Minister is trying to keep Britain in the EU, which has historically been a Labour goal as well.
Do you think Theresa May is trying to keep the UK in the EU, in practice if not in name? She would have more depth than I have given her credit for.
I think immigration is the one thing that exercises her. Cameron got the stick for his less than 100 000 pledge but it was Theresa May's department who failed to deliver. As we know, Brexit won't resolve immigration levels apart from the effect of an economic recession.
As there's a break in cricket, why not settle down with some popcorn and read the thoughts of Labour Party Marxists, who aim to transform the party and have it "refounded on the basis of a genuinely socialist programme as opposed to social democratic gradualism or bureaucratic statism."
(they are not entryists, however, oh, no):
"Unity between the PLP as it exists and the membership it holds in such hatred and contempt is, at this point, impossible. There is merely victory, if we are bold, or defeat, if we allow ourselves to be disarmed."
As there's a break in cricket, why not settle down with some popcorn and read the thoughts of Labour Party Marxists, who aim to transform the party and have it "refounded on the basis of a genuinely socialist programme as opposed to social democratic gradualism or bureaucratic statism."
(they are not entryists, however, oh, no):
"Unity between the PLP as it exists and the membership it holds in such hatred and contempt is, at this point, impossible. There is merely victory, if we are bold, or defeat, if we allow ourselves to be disarmed."
As there's a break in cricket, why not settle down with some popcorn and read the thoughts of Labour Party Marxists, who aim to transform the party and have it "refounded on the basis of a genuinely socialist programme as opposed to social democratic gradualism or bureaucratic statism."
(they are not entryists, however, oh, no):
"Unity between the PLP as it exists and the membership it holds in such hatred and contempt is, at this point, impossible. There is merely victory, if we are bold, or defeat, if we allow ourselves to be disarmed."
Can you think of a more soul sapping task than reading the tweets and other social media of the thousands of £25 voters to establish if they've been the wrong sort of rude or said something that wasn't acceptable to the thought police?
The poor devils in Labour's Compliance Unit deserve our sympathy
My main insight from this piece is that Cambridge really churn out some duffers.
How very dare you madam. We've also produced some of country's finest, for example, Nick Clegg, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Sir Anthony Blunt.
Has Cambridge produced any top-rate politician since Pitt the Younger?
Define 'top-rate'.
I jest. Setting the bar at Pitt or better is not entirely reasonable.
Off the top of my head, all of the following holders of at least one Great Office were at Cambridge:
Stanley Baldwin Iain Macleod Ken Clarke Michael Howard Arthur Balfour Henry Campbell-Bannerman (postgraduate) Lord Palmerston (postgraduate)
I am sure there are more, but considering that includes the most electorally successful leader of all time, the first leader of a political party from a religious minority, the only philosopher ever to be PM and one of Britain's most famous war leaders, I think they've done OK.
I think Edinburgh is the only other university that has provided more than one PM.
Which one is "one of Britain's most famous war leaders"?
Did you sort out your organ problems, Doc?
Palmerston, Crimean War.
Well, it flopped a bit in verse three, but that was because I put a flat where I shouldn't. We had a very good climax in the fourth hymn though due to judicious use of the fingers.
Edit - I'm going to have to write comments like this for ever now, aren't I? The sacrifices you make for trying to cheer up somebody who's feeing a bit low!
I don't think so, Doc, I was genuinely interested. A good church organist is a rare thing these days. At my last church (St. Andrews, West Tarring) we had a superb fellow, at Hurstpierpoint not so much. The difference a good organist make cannot in, my view, be overstated.
There are I think four critical moments for the organist, the opening or processional hymn, the organ interlude during the giving of the communion, the recessional hymn, and the free time playing whilst the congregation get to their feet and leave. Get those right and everything will be fine. The priest(s) and congregation can go out into the world in a happier brighter frame of mind.
Did you sort out your suspected mystery pressure loss?
As there's a break in cricket, why not settle down with some popcorn and read the thoughts of Labour Party Marxists, who aim to transform the party and have it "refounded on the basis of a genuinely socialist programme as opposed to social democratic gradualism or bureaucratic statism."
(they are not entryists, however, oh, no):
"Unity between the PLP as it exists and the membership it holds in such hatred and contempt is, at this point, impossible. There is merely victory, if we are bold, or defeat, if we allow ourselves to be disarmed."
The worrying thing is they actually hit the nail on head regarding the manoeuvring of the 'right' (to those of us in the real world, the soft left) to keep Corbyn from winning or even getting on the ballot. If Smith somehow does win his leadership would be forever tainted.
I'm not sure I would have used exactly the phraseology that Paul Lewis used but who's to say he's necessarily wrong?
Obviously Fox, Johnson and Davis should have a bonding weekend at Chevening to sort things out. Once they have established who gets to use the bathroom first, who does what with trade negotiations should be straightforward.
What a deeply unimpressive trio they are. The Tories are very lucky that Labour have made themselves unelectable. But lumbering the country with such preening lighweights makes Labour's implosion even more unforgiveable.
TBF although it's normally true that the opposition needs to be electable to discourage the government from doing things it dislikes, in this case the Prime Minister is trying to keep Britain in the EU, which has historically been a Labour goal as well.
Do you think Theresa May is trying to keep the UK in the EU, in practice if not in name? She would have more depth than I have given her credit for.
I think immigration is the one thing that exercises her. Cameron got the stick for his less than 100 000 pledge but it was Theresa May's department who failed to deliver. As we know, Brexit won't resolve immigration levels apart from the effect of an economic recession.
Kind of. She obviously thinks Brexit is a bad idea, and she has the practical problem that since the Leave campaign promised several contradictory things, any actual possible exit is going to seriously nark off a large chunk of her supporters. So the strategy is to delay as much as possible, and to try to tie responsibility to the people supporting Brexit.
Ultimately there are then a few different ways she survives it: 1) The leave case falls apart, eg Fox goes to war with Boris on different plans, both of which are unappealing, and she calls a new referendum with a Remain option. 2) She carries on governing until she retires and passes the parcel to some other poor sod. 3) Some other major world event occurs that makes the whole thing moot.
If there's enough pressure she may have to go ahead and Brexit it, but I'm sure she'd rather keep the other options open. A functional Labour Party would probably reduce her room for maneuvre.
I'm not sure I would have used exactly the phraseology that Paul Lewis used but who's to say he's necessarily wrong?
Obviously Fox, Johnson and Davis should have a bonding weekend at Chevening to sort things out. Once they have established who gets to use the bathroom first, who does what with trade negotiations should be straightforward.
What a deeply unimpressive trio they are. The Tories are very lucky that Labour have made themselves unelectable. But lumbering the country with such preening lighweights makes Labour's implosion even more unforgiveable.
TBF although it's normally true that the opposition needs to be electable to discourage the government from doing things it dislikes, in this case the Prime Minister is trying to keep Britain in the EU, which has historically been a Labour goal as well.
Do you think Theresa May is trying to keep the UK in the EU, in practice if not in name? She would have more depth than I have given her credit for.
I think immigration is the one thing that exercises her. Cameron got the stick for his less than 100 000 pledge but it was Theresa May's department who failed to deliver. As we know, Brexit won't resolve immigration levels apart from the effect of an economic recession.
Kind of. She obviously thinks Brexit is a bad idea, and she has the practical problem that since the Leave campaign promised several contradictory things, any actual possible exit is going to seriously nark off a large chunk of her supporters. So the strategy is to delay as much as possible, and to try to tie responsibility to the people supporting Brexit.
Ultimately there are then a few different ways she survives it: 1) The leave case falls apart, eg Fox goes to war with Boris on different plans, both of which are unappealing, and she calls a new referendum with a Remain option. 2) She carries on governing until she retires and passes the parcel to some other poor sod. 3) Some other major world event occurs that makes the whole thing moot.
If there's enough pressure she may have to go ahead and Brexit it, but I'm sure she'd rather keep the other options open. A functional Labour Party would probably reduce her room for maneuvre.
On point 3, would the election of Trump qualify? It would certainly give the Hannanite Brexit wing pause for thought.
I don't think so, Doc, I was genuinely interested. A good church organist is a rare thing these days. At my last church (St. Andrews, West Tarring) we had a superb fellow, at Hurstpierpoint not so much. The difference a good organist make cannot in, my view, be overstated.
There are I think four critical moments for the organist, the opening or processional hymn, the organ interlude during the giving of the communion, the recessional hymn, and the free time playing whilst the congregation get to their feet and leave. Get those right and everything will be fine. The priest(s) and congregation can go out into the world in a happier brighter frame of mind.
Did you sort out your suspected mystery pressure loss?
As it was a serious question, I'll reply in kind. The organ at Cannock literally exploded on Good Friday as the 90-year-old pump let go. After a lot of trouble, it was successfully replaced last month. However the new one is much more powerful and is putting pressure on the wind chest. The leather on this has not been replaced since 1913 and is as a result starting to leak at times. On Thursday it was causing endless trouble - today was cooler so not so much of an issue.
Good organists are unfortunately as you say getting very rare. They have two at Cannock, one of whom is moving to Manchester and one is away this week. So I had to fill in as best I could. I tend, rather than do voluntariles I have no time to practice, to improvise on hymn tunes for the incidental music.
Cannock is also a vey difficult organ to play as it is in the wrong place so it has far too much raw power - it is quite capable of drowning out 500 people if misused. So I had to be very inventive with stop combinations to avoid deafening everybody and still getting some dynamics in to reflect the words. That of course adds seven layers of difficulty to the whole thing.
Sorry to hear that you are running short in Sussex. If it's any consolation from September Cannock, a town of 90,000 people, will have two professional organists divided among 15 churches.
I don't think so, Doc, I was genuinely interested. A good church organist is a rare thing these days. At my last church (St. Andrews, West Tarring) we had a superb fellow, at Hurstpierpoint not so much. The difference a good organist make cannot in, my view, be overstated.
There are I think four critical moments for the organist, the opening or processional hymn, the organ interlude during the giving of the communion, the recessional hymn, and the free time playing whilst the congregation get to their feet and leave. Get those right and everything will be fine. The priest(s) and congregation can go out into the world in a happier brighter frame of mind.
Did you sort out your suspected mystery pressure loss?
Had three wonderful organists (one being my Dad) at Plympton St Maurice as a kid. Beautiful small Norman church, higher than the Catholics with incense- and holy water-swinging, beautiful carved wood rood screen. Enough to bring a certain David Owen into the congregation every now and then (his parents were regulars).
You can just make out the organ on the left of this photo:
Comments
Hawkeye in the footy for the goal line, they go with what it says, no margin of error, even if the ball was obscured.
Did you sort out your organ problems, Doc?
That seems like a very unfair double whammey, you challenge, Hawkeye shows the umpire was most likely wrong but the decision won't change AND you lose a challenge as well.
It's to overturn the howlers. As it stands right now you can exploit the camera foreshortening effect and get just about any very low catch overturned through "doubt".
As for it being a fudge, it was not fudged and that is why India still refuse to use it; it is not being used in the West Indies right now. Why the ICC doesn't tell them to grow up and use it I don't know. It can't be all that money they make for the game via the IPL, because that would be a silly reason.
Well, it flopped a bit in verse three, but that was because I put a flat where I shouldn't. We had a very good climax in the fourth hymn though due to judicious use of the fingers.
Edit - I'm going to have to write comments like this for ever now, aren't I? The sacrifices you make for trying to cheer up somebody who's feeing a bit low!
What I would change is the no ball. This business of umpires checking the front foot when a wicket is taken has to stop. It's unfair that that mistake can be corrected, but the (admittedly rarer) case of a wicket taken off a wrongly called no ball cannot. So I would take the no ball out of the on field umpire's hands and give it to the third umpire. I know the batsmen in theory lose the benefit of hearing the call but that could be compensated for by giving a free hit off the ball following a no ball.
Edit - drat, got my sums wrong. The top five have 151 between them across both innings so Mo has 11 fewer than they do.
I played with a WI international a number of years that was the same. He was incredibly talented, but you got the feeling he just got a bit bored. The one exception I remember was when the West Indies got thumped in a test, he turned up really pissed off, bowled in the high 80's, put two people in hospital (one poor guy got a riser that went glove, helmet, caught by third man) and then smashed it around the ground with ease.
Half the width of the ball is a massive "error", they are far more accurate than that.
I think immigration is the one thing that exercises her. Cameron got the stick for his less than 100 000 pledge but it was Theresa May's department who failed to deliver. As we know, Brexit won't resolve immigration levels apart from the effect of an economic recession.
(they are not entryists, however, oh, no):
"Unity between the PLP as it exists and the membership it holds in such hatred and contempt is, at this point, impossible. There is merely victory, if we are bold, or defeat, if we allow ourselves to be disarmed."
http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/no-safe-spaces-for-traitors/
The poor devils in Labour's Compliance Unit deserve our sympathy
There are I think four critical moments for the organist, the opening or processional hymn, the organ interlude during the giving of the communion, the recessional hymn, and the free time playing whilst the congregation get to their feet and leave. Get those right and everything will be fine. The priest(s) and congregation can go out into the world in a happier brighter frame of mind.
Did you sort out your suspected mystery pressure loss?
Ultimately there are then a few different ways she survives it:
1) The leave case falls apart, eg Fox goes to war with Boris on different plans, both of which are unappealing, and she calls a new referendum with a Remain option.
2) She carries on governing until she retires and passes the parcel to some other poor sod.
3) Some other major world event occurs that makes the whole thing moot.
If there's enough pressure she may have to go ahead and Brexit it, but I'm sure she'd rather keep the other options open. A functional Labour Party would probably reduce her room for maneuvre.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Good organists are unfortunately as you say getting very rare. They have two at Cannock, one of whom is moving to Manchester and one is away this week. So I had to fill in as best I could. I tend, rather than do voluntariles I have no time to practice, to improvise on hymn tunes for the incidental music.
Cannock is also a vey difficult organ to play as it is in the wrong place so it has far too much raw power - it is quite capable of drowning out 500 people if misused. So I had to be very inventive with stop combinations to avoid deafening everybody and still getting some dynamics in to reflect the words. That of course adds seven layers of difficulty to the whole thing.
Sorry to hear that you are running short in Sussex. If it's any consolation from September Cannock, a town of 90,000 people, will have two professional organists divided among 15 churches.
You can just make out the organ on the left of this photo:
http://www.plymptonstmauricechurch.co.uk/images/Church Brochure/DSC_0005.jpg