Stolen wholesale from my lovely old chum, Scribsy.
1. What did you do in 2008 that you'd never done before?
Worked as a film extra, went a whole year unemployed (grr),
2. Did you keep your New Years' resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I never make them.
3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
My sister in law did. To a child with the world's biggest eyes.
4. Did anyone close to you die?
Nope. Lucky year.
5. What countries did you visit?
Cornwall... well they have their own flag anyway.
6. What would you like to have in 2009 that you lacked in 2008?
A job. Dear god. A job.
7. What date from 2008 will be etched on your memory and why?
The Mexican Christmas party from Christmas eve (with Three Amigos accompaniment) is a candidate. As is the six hour game of Twilight Imperium.
8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
I have had a really shite year for everything. Very little major has gone right for me, but I did record five songs to professional standards so that was good.
9. What was your biggest failure?
Not getting any of the 50 jobs I applied for. I blame the credit crunch, but then I would, wouldn't I?
10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
Yes. I was diagnosed with an oo-nasty but its not new or curable so there.
11. What was the best thing you bought?
I bought much that was shiny and lovely. I believe that the spirit of the question is to describe something meaningless and frivolous and selfish? If not, I would have to say a big kick was buying exactly the right present for Mrs Algo - if its a selfish thing, I'd go with a game; Fallout 3 in the computer world, and probably Shadows Over Camelot in the Board Games.
12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
The majority of the American people. Thanks for sparing the world a Zombie and a Witch.
13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
Sarah Palin. What a dumb bitch. But the winner of dick of the year must be the shitcreep that is Robert Mugabe. He is a cock of monumental proportions.
14. Where did most of your money go?
Rent, bills, groceries.
15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Christmas. I love Christmas.
16. What song(s) will always remind you of 2008?
Hiphopopotamous VS. The Rhymenocerous.
17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i. Same.
ii. thinner or fatter? Slightly thinner, but that's because....
iii. richer or poorer? A lot poorer.
18. What do you wish you'd done more of?
Writing. HAVING A JOB!!!
19. What do you wish you'd done less of?
Moping.
20. How will you be spending/did you spend Christmas?
Visiting folks, playing games, entertaining the under 7s.
22. Did you fall in love in 2008?
No. I fell in love in 2001. Not recovered yet. Hehe.
23. How many one-night stands?
What the hell? Who would say?
24. What was your favorite TV program?
John Adams was good, as was The Devil's Whore, Battlestar Galactica, etc etc.
25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
I'd never heard of Sarah Palin last year. I wish this was still the case.
26. What was the best book you read?
Night Watch, by Timur Bekhmanitov (or surname slightly differently spelt)
27. What was your greatest musical discovery?
Kings Of Leon. I was slow.
28. What did you want and get?
Android, a rather attractive board game version of Blade Runner so complicated it scared off a lawyer.
29. What did you want and not get?
A JOB!!!
30. What was your favorite film of this year?
It won the Wall Shadows Award! The Assassination Of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford. Closely followed by the Dark Knight.
31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
We were in Cornwall, so just a meal and a pasty or two.
32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
A JOB! A JOB! A JOB!
33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2008?
Neo-unemployable
34. What kept you sane?
To the extent that it remains a possibility, Mrs Algo.
35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
I saw Volver this year. Penelope Cruz in that is mind blowing.
36. What political issue stirred you the most?
The US Election, though I should have been screaming about several things going on in Africa.
37. Who did you miss?
My old uni mates, my family. The usual.
38. Who was the best new person you met?
A dangerous question, since I met many nice people and I love them all.
39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2008:
While sharing your problems is good, some discretion makes you look less like a nutter.
40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year.
"UH=OH!"
Monday, 29 December 2008
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Football - its a silly game.
Regular readers will know yours truly is a long suffering Tottenham Hotspur fan so imagine my glee at seeing us bash local rivals West Ham 2-0 yesterday at their place.
Its becoming a real rollercoaster ride this season since despite having a total turnaround and playing a billion times better since we changed managers we are STILL 15th and not really out of the scrap at the bottom of the league table.
In fact, so incompetent was Juande Ramos he has been rewarded with one of Sports most poisoned of chalices, the managers post at Real Madrid. I can't for the life of me understand what they think he will succeed at there when his affect at Spurs was much like the poisoned Lasagne a few seasons ago which cost us Champions League football.
Never mind. I am cheered up by the way things are going and hopefully I won't have to worry again after January.
A
Its becoming a real rollercoaster ride this season since despite having a total turnaround and playing a billion times better since we changed managers we are STILL 15th and not really out of the scrap at the bottom of the league table.
In fact, so incompetent was Juande Ramos he has been rewarded with one of Sports most poisoned of chalices, the managers post at Real Madrid. I can't for the life of me understand what they think he will succeed at there when his affect at Spurs was much like the poisoned Lasagne a few seasons ago which cost us Champions League football.
Never mind. I am cheered up by the way things are going and hopefully I won't have to worry again after January.
A
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
The asker of questions and the seeker of answers.
Afternoon All,
We're all thinking about science today as CERN start off their Large Hadron Collider on the France/Switzerland border.It made me think about what the make up of the scientific mindset is.
In the shower (a great brain starting tool) I thought a lot about this particular dichotomy. The two are not perhaps as mutually exclusive as I will depict them, but let me explain the two separate personality types to you;
The seeker of answers believes that there is a fundamental answer to all of his/her questions.
The asker of questions believes that we learn more about our world using questions as a tool.
Now, as I have described them the fundamental difference is clear. For one there are no absolute answers and for one there are. The difference is not so great, you may think, since both are inquisitive types who want to know more about the universe and look at some of the fundamental things that make it up.
And I agree as far as that goes. The issue here is one of "when to stop?"
The seeker for answers will often find an answer that fits and set about defending it against all coming counter arguments and the seeker of questions will find an answer and ask questions about it to test it - make it more solid or make it fall down.
Now, consider these real world examples; creationism is an answer that for thousands of years answered the biggest questions of all, "where did we come from?" & "Why are we here?" and is held onto with extreme force by those who expound upon its theories.
Now, many creationist arguments are formed using the following method:
At this stage. I will draw your attention to this little gem of a link to "Answers In Genesis", in which lots of counter arguments to mine can be found and if you like, believed in.
The central argument of this theory is that since the Bible is the word of God, then it must be true, therefore everything it says is true.
Being the inquisitive sort that I am means that I am honour bound here to point out that since the statement that the bible is the word of God is included in the bible then the whole thing is a classic circular argument, a favourite technique of those obsessed with answers above all else.
Now, if we all were content simply to be given answers that comfort us and make us feel important, that would be that, but it due to the inquisitive scientific mind of the questioners that advances are made, often at the express discomfort of the church.
I'm reverting to type as an atheist polemicist again, but really this applies to anyone so convinced their theory is right that they will cling to it, no matter any evidence to the contrary. This argument can be made at atheists expense too, so allow me to do that.
"My disbelief in God is just a refusal to be swayed by the evidence to the contrary"
Let's look at the evidence to the contrary then. From "answers in genesis", here is their first and most supported argument for creationism;
The protection of Bible "truth" makes for a great way of calling people narrow minded when in fact they are anything but. As I stated before, I looked into God as an answer, I asked myself the questions and came to my conclusion decades ago. There is nothing in the Bible, according to my study and questioning, for which there is not a better answer elsewhere. Better that is, by a factor of millions.
Add to this that I have had no moments of personal revelation, no voices from heaven, no experiences or feelings of any kind similar to those expounded by the religious sector of society and I have absolutely NO evidence to the contrary to ignore. To say I am refusing to be swayed by it is like claiming I refuse to be swayed by the blue bananas that rule Westminster. There simply isn't anything to be swayed by!
Now, as a next step the faithful will possibly argue that I am simply disregarding as evidence the millions of people who do believe in God. I will at this stage point out that having lots of people agree with you doesn't make your hypothesis correct. All that millions of believers prove is that millions of people believe - they are not evidence for or against God.
Now, if new "evidence" turns up I always take an active interest. I am always disappointed. A weeping statue turns out to be rusty, a piece of toast that has a face that looks like the modern idea of Jesus on it (a simple probability argument put paid to this) etc.
And yet Creationists are viewed with some extra respect because they have "faith". Ick. Even Sarah Palin, VP candidate and general nutbar, was selected partly BECAUSE she was a creationist and a "christian fundamentalist" (maybe also because she's quite hot, in a soft-porn-secretary sort of way). This makes me even more adamant that her and McCain would be disastrous for the whole world, and set the most powerful country in the world on the path towards Theocracy.
In conclusion; a seeker of answers is content with the best answer (s)he can find when (s)he needs it, a questioner is never satisfied with any. I hope I tend towards the latter. What do you think?
A
We're all thinking about science today as CERN start off their Large Hadron Collider on the France/Switzerland border.It made me think about what the make up of the scientific mindset is.
In the shower (a great brain starting tool) I thought a lot about this particular dichotomy. The two are not perhaps as mutually exclusive as I will depict them, but let me explain the two separate personality types to you;
The seeker of answers believes that there is a fundamental answer to all of his/her questions.
The asker of questions believes that we learn more about our world using questions as a tool.
Now, as I have described them the fundamental difference is clear. For one there are no absolute answers and for one there are. The difference is not so great, you may think, since both are inquisitive types who want to know more about the universe and look at some of the fundamental things that make it up.
And I agree as far as that goes. The issue here is one of "when to stop?"
The seeker for answers will often find an answer that fits and set about defending it against all coming counter arguments and the seeker of questions will find an answer and ask questions about it to test it - make it more solid or make it fall down.
Now, consider these real world examples; creationism is an answer that for thousands of years answered the biggest questions of all, "where did we come from?" & "Why are we here?" and is held onto with extreme force by those who expound upon its theories.
Now, many creationist arguments are formed using the following method:
- The world was created by God
- What evidence supports this?
- Was there a creating God?
- What does the evidence say?
At this stage. I will draw your attention to this little gem of a link to "Answers In Genesis", in which lots of counter arguments to mine can be found and if you like, believed in.
The central argument of this theory is that since the Bible is the word of God, then it must be true, therefore everything it says is true.
Being the inquisitive sort that I am means that I am honour bound here to point out that since the statement that the bible is the word of God is included in the bible then the whole thing is a classic circular argument, a favourite technique of those obsessed with answers above all else.
Now, if we all were content simply to be given answers that comfort us and make us feel important, that would be that, but it due to the inquisitive scientific mind of the questioners that advances are made, often at the express discomfort of the church.
I'm reverting to type as an atheist polemicist again, but really this applies to anyone so convinced their theory is right that they will cling to it, no matter any evidence to the contrary. This argument can be made at atheists expense too, so allow me to do that.
"My disbelief in God is just a refusal to be swayed by the evidence to the contrary"
Let's look at the evidence to the contrary then. From "answers in genesis", here is their first and most supported argument for creationism;
The authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A: Bible).Now, what should a self respecting "asker of questions" do with the bible? Test its claims, question its conclusions and study the ramifications of its statements. Of course, the Bible is immune to such questioning from the scientific establishment since it is "infallible".
The protection of Bible "truth" makes for a great way of calling people narrow minded when in fact they are anything but. As I stated before, I looked into God as an answer, I asked myself the questions and came to my conclusion decades ago. There is nothing in the Bible, according to my study and questioning, for which there is not a better answer elsewhere. Better that is, by a factor of millions.
Add to this that I have had no moments of personal revelation, no voices from heaven, no experiences or feelings of any kind similar to those expounded by the religious sector of society and I have absolutely NO evidence to the contrary to ignore. To say I am refusing to be swayed by it is like claiming I refuse to be swayed by the blue bananas that rule Westminster. There simply isn't anything to be swayed by!
Now, as a next step the faithful will possibly argue that I am simply disregarding as evidence the millions of people who do believe in God. I will at this stage point out that having lots of people agree with you doesn't make your hypothesis correct. All that millions of believers prove is that millions of people believe - they are not evidence for or against God.
Now, if new "evidence" turns up I always take an active interest. I am always disappointed. A weeping statue turns out to be rusty, a piece of toast that has a face that looks like the modern idea of Jesus on it (a simple probability argument put paid to this) etc.
And yet Creationists are viewed with some extra respect because they have "faith". Ick. Even Sarah Palin, VP candidate and general nutbar, was selected partly BECAUSE she was a creationist and a "christian fundamentalist" (maybe also because she's quite hot, in a soft-porn-secretary sort of way). This makes me even more adamant that her and McCain would be disastrous for the whole world, and set the most powerful country in the world on the path towards Theocracy.
In conclusion; a seeker of answers is content with the best answer (s)he can find when (s)he needs it, a questioner is never satisfied with any. I hope I tend towards the latter. What do you think?
A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
